Hoensbroech, Paul - Fourteen Years a Jesuit - Volume 2 (EN, 1911, 512 S., Scan)

Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2009 with funding from
University of Toronto

http://www.archive.org/details/fourteenyearsje02hoen

FOURTEEN YEARS A JESUIT

Fourteen Years
a Jesuit

A Record of Personal Experience
and a Criticism

BY

COUNT PAUL VON HOENSBROECH

TRANSLATED FROM THE GERMAN BY

ALICE ZIMMERN

(Girton College, Cambridge)

VOLUME II

CASSELL AND COMPANY, LTD.
London, New York, Toronto and Melbourne

1911

ALL RIGHTS RESERVEP

CONTENTS

CHAPTER PAGK

15. A Criticism of the Inner Constitution of the Order :

Some General Characteristics .... 1

16. The Criticism Continued: Theory and Practice of

the Vows ........ 49

17. The Criticism Continued: Theory and Practice of

the Constitutions . . . . . .105

18. The Criticism Continued : Politics and Confessors 133

19. The Criticism Continued: Court Confessors . .172

20. Scholastic Years at Wynandsrade, Blyenbeck and

Ditton Hall . . . . . . .199

21. The Scholastic Studies ...... 227

22. The Philosophical and Theological Studies of the

SCHOLASTICATE 246

23. The Attitude of the Order to Learning . . 270

24. Jesuit Morality 286

25. Jesuit Morality and the State .... 338

26. Exaeten 369

27. Berlin 399

28. The Tertiate and the End . . . . .412

29. General Verdict on the Jesuit Order . . 423

30. From Then Till Now 447

Index 409

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

CHAPTER XV

A CRITICISM OF THE INNER CONSTITUTION OF THE ORDER :

SOME GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS

By the “ inner constitution of the Order ” I mean the
spirit of the Order. Theoretically, it is manifested in
the Constitutions of the Order, and, practically, in its
activity. Thus the inner and outer are combined, the
organism of the Order, with its actual and its historical
life, being formed by both.

Criticism will, therefore, extend to the whole of this
domain. But, first, some preliminary questions must be
answered.

1. Have we the real, and, above all, the complete
Constitutions of the Order in the extant editions of the
“ Institute of the Society of Jesus ?”*

A positive answer cannot be given. We can only
take what is offered as the “ complete ” Constitutions in
good faith, trusting in the honour of those who issue
them, namely, the Jesuit Order* itself. Nor is corrobora-
tion by another authority of the completeness of the
Constitutions, to be found anywhere — of course I am only

* Prague, 1757 ; Rome, 1870 ; etc. The latest edition of the “ Institute,”
published in Florence in 1893, cannot be obtained at ordinary booksellers.
When I sought to procure a copy from the Order through the Berlin branch of
the Herder firm of publishers at Freiburg i. Br., which is closely connected with the
Order, my request was refused. They would not supply me with the latest
edition, even for payment.

D

2

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

thinking of an ecclesiastical authority — which has had an
insight into the original documents, the first drafts and
editions of the Constitutions. The Order alone tells us,
“ These are my constitutions and rules.” But not even
the Order itself has ever stated officially and solemnly,
“ These are my complete constitutions, my complete
rules : there are no others.”

Serious doubts arise as to their completeness when
we peruse the Summarium Constitutionum and the
Regulae Communes * — i.e. those portions of the Con-
stitutions which are supposed to contain a summary,
the quintessence of the principles and rules : “A sum-
mary ( summarium ) of those statutes which relate to the
spiritual direction of our members and which are to be
observed by all.”

An incoherent mass of matter is to be found here,
consisting of fifty-two points and forty-nine rules. Regu-
lations dealing with mere externals stand side by side
with others concerned with ascetic discipline. Funda-
mental rules for the structure and direction of the Society
alternate with what is obviously unimportant and tran-
sitory. What astonishes us is not so much the lack of
arrangement as the lack of coherence. We are sensible
of gaps, and involuntarily the thought arises, “ Has not
something been omitted here and here and here ? ”

The Summarium and the Regulae Communes were
read once every month during meals from the pulpit
of the refectory. The more often I heard them the
more strongly I doubted : “ Am I hearing something

complete or something consciously and intentionally
curtailed ? ” In important and decisive conversations, to
be mentioned later, I expressed my doubts to the Pro-
vincial of the German Province, Father Jacob Ratgeb.
I received the evasive reply : “ Leave alone such quib-

* Inst. S.J., II., 70-7S.

Criticism of the Inner Constitution 3

filing. Take things as they come ; what lies in the future
does not concern to-day.”

The Transactions of the fifth General Congregation
(1593-1594) afford abundant food for doubt and con-
sideration from this point of view. We know them only
from the Decrees published by the Order itself. Inci-
dentally, why has the Order never yet published the com-
plete minutes of even a single General Congregation — and
there have been twenty-five of these up to the present
time ? Space, surely, has not been lacking in its numer-
ous and voluminous works on the inner and outer history
of the Order. But even from these Decrees it can clearly
be seen that there is intentional obscurity with regard to the
Constitutions, so that we have a full right to doubt their
completeness when printed and published by the Order.

We find, in the first place :

“ Everything in the Formula Instituti which was
laid before Pope Julius III. and sanctioned by him and
his successors, and everything in it referring by way of
explanation to our Constitutions is and must be looked
upon as the substance of our Institute. And although
there is other matter belonging to the substance of our
Institute, the Congregation has decided that it need not
be discussed at the present time.” *

Directly after this we read that a request was made
to explain more clearly what are the substantiate [of
the Institute], and a question was raised as to whether
it would not be advantageous to add some examples of
substantiate, which seemed opportune, to the sentence,
“ There is other matter belonging to the substance of
the Institute.” The Congregation consequently deter-
mined to amend the Decree.!

The 58th Decree is the result of the amendment :

“ The substance of the Institute is, in the first place,

•f Decree 45.

* Decree 44.

4

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

that contained in the formula or regula of the Society,
which was submitted to Pope Julius III. and was con-
firmed by h im and some of his successors ; in the second
place, that without which the contents of the formula
could not hold good at all, or only with difficulty, namely :

(1) There are some essential impediments to admission ;

(2) a judicial form need not be observed on dismissal ;

(3) a statement of conscience must be made to the
Superior ; (4) everyone must be content that anything
about him, which has been learnt outside confession,
should be notified to the Superior ; (5) all must be pre-
pared to show suitable love and charity to one another.
And other similar points, the confirmation of which the
Congregation has no time to consider at present, especi-
ally as the Generals can confirm them when necessary, if
they are not confirmed in other General Congregations.”

But the seventh General Congregation of 1616 decrees
almost in contradiction to the fifth :

“ The Congregation decided that it would be more
advisable to abstain from the confirmation of other things
pertaining to the substance of the Institute, besides those
expressed in the formula, because it is not possible to
express everything in summary. If anybody should feel
any doubt, he can apply to our worthy Father [the
General of the Order] and learn from him what he ought
to think in this respect.” *

There is here an evident unwillingness to make known
the complete “ substantialia of the Institute.” It is a
mere pretext for the seventh General Congregation to
say that they cannot be summarised ; and there is an
avowal of the existence of still other substantialia when
the fifth General Congregation says that “ There is other
matter besides.”!

* Decree 40.

j* See Chapter XIV. for the Formula Instituti.

Criticism of the Inner Constitution 5

The doubt concerning the incompleteness of the edi-
tions of the statutes, etc., published by the Order becomes
a certainty through the proceedings of the eighth and
fourteenth General Congregations.

The Order carefully conceals in its published collec-
tions of the Congregational Decrees* the transactions and
resolutions of the eighth General Congregation (1645-46)
as to an important letter by Innocent X., dealing in
eighteen points with comprehensive reforms of the Jesuit
Order.

At the fourteenth General Congregation in 1696, the
General, Thyrsus Gonzalez, proposed that the Congrega-
tion should agree that the past events — i.e. the dispute
as to the General’s attack on probabilism — should not
again be touched upon. The Congregation decided
accordingly, but this important resolution is missing in
every official publication of the Decrees, j The editions
of the Decrees intended for publicity must not contain
anything which could throw an unfavourable light on
inner transactions. How frequently may this sum-
marised procedure have taken effect ? How can history
be written when founded on such “official transactions”?

In the rules of the Socius of the Provincial also, allu-
sions are made to secret statutes of the Order, only exist-
ing in manuscript form.

“ He must take care of the separate archives of the
Province of the Order, inasmuch as they contain manu-
scripts, which are especially important for the direction of
the Province.” Amongst these books are included, “ The
book which contains the unprinted regulations ( ordina -
tiones) by the Generals of the Order binding on the whole
Society. The book which contains another kind of
unprinted circulars of the Generals.” |

* Prague edition of the Inst. 8.J . , I., 449-696; Homan edition, I., 139-461.

t For proofs of this see Dollinger-Heusch, Moralstreitigkeiten, II., 214.

% Inst. S.J., II., 86.

6

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

The latter book especially must be characterised as
a secret book.

Secret statutes must also be inferred from an utter-
ance of the Spanish Jesuit Miranda, appointed as Assis-
tant to the General, which is contained in a letter written
to a friend in 1736, and communicated by the Jesuit
Ibanez in his report on the Jesuit state of Paraguay.

“ Until I came here [Rome], where I first obtained
accurate information about everything, I did not com-
prehend what our Society was. Its government is a
special study, which not even the Provincials under-
stand. Only one who fills the office which I now occupy
can even begin to understand it.” *

Since Miranda was a Provincial before he was nomi-
nated Assistant, he must have understood what he was
writing about. Ibanez also mentions unprinted “ ordin-
ances, regulations, and letters of the General and Pro-
vincials ” which doubtless were to be kept secret.] -

The words of Don Juan de Palafox, Bishop of Los
Angeles, whom the Jesuits hated with a deadly hatred
and persecuted even in the grave, are significant in this
connection. He says in his famous letter of January
8th, 1649, to Innocent X., to which I must refer again
later :

“ What other Order has Constitutions which are not
allowed to be seen, privileges which it conceals, and secret
rules and everything relating to the arrangement of the
Order hidden behind a curtain ? The rules of every other
Order may be seen by all the world. . . . But among
the Jesuits there are even some of the Professed who do
not know the statutes, privileges, and even the rules of
the Society, although they are pledged to observe them.
Therefore they are not governed by their Superiors accord-
ing to the rules of the Church, but according to certain

* Le Bret Magazin , II., 45S. f Ibid, II., 373.

Criticism of the Inner Constitution 7

concealed statutes known by the Superiors alone, and
according to certain secret and pernicious denunciations,
which leads to a large number being driven from the
bosom of the Society.” *

2. Has the Jesuit Order secret instructions, and are
the oft-quoted “ Monita privata ” authentic ?

From what has been and must still be said I have
not the least doubt that the Order has secret statutes,
which it guards carefully. The Jesuit Order merits the
designation “ secret society ” more than any other asso-
ciation.

The question as to the authenticity or spuriousness
of the Monita cannot be answered so easily and
simply.

The Monita •privata Societatis Jesu (“Secret Instruc-
tions of the Society of Jesus ”) first appeared in print at
Cracow in 1612, after they had already been circulated in
manuscript form. The editor seems to have been the
ex-Jesuit Zahorowski. Almost innumerable editions and
reprints in all civilised tongues followed one another.
The latest edition was published at Bamberg in 1904.

The importance of the publication follows from the
fact that, directly after its appearance, the General oi
the Order, Mutius Vitelleschi, twice (in 1616 and 1617)
instructed the German Jesuit, Gretser, a prominent theo-
logian of the Order, to refute it, and that up to most
recent times Jesuit after Jesuit has come forward to
repudiate it.f

A few years ago, Adolf Harnack asked my opinion as
to whether the Monita were genuine or not. I replied

* Don Juan de Palafox, Letters to Innocent X. (Frankfort and Leipzig, 1773),
p. 116 et seq.

t See Dukr., S.J., J esuitenfabeln, 4th edition (Freiburg i. Br.), 1904, p, 90
et seq.

8

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

that we had to distinguish between the genuineness of
the form and of the matter, and I still hold to this
distinction.

The genuineness of the form — i.e. that the Monita
were drawn up by the Order itself in the published text
as a secret supplement to the official Constitution of the
Order — is hard to prove.

Of the genuineness of the contents — i.e. that the
Monita contain regulations in harmony with the spirit
of the Order, whether its author were a Jesuit or an
enemy of the Jesuits, whether he wished to write a
serious or a satirical work — I am as positive as of the
existence of secret instructions of the Order.

But even the genuineness of the form cannot be as
easily disposed of as has been done by the Jesuits, and
recently, in an especially superficial manner, by the Jesuit
Duhr.* In face of the historically indisputable facts
bearing on the Monita, it only remains to the disin-
terested and conscientious examiner to pronounce “ Not
proven ” over the genuineness of the form.

Ecclesiastical opinions (those of bishops, Congrega-
tions of the Index, etc.) regarding the genuineness are of
no value, because they are partial, are prompted by the
Jesuits themselves, and condemn them as false without
attempting to produce proofs.

It is natural that the Jesuits themselves should deny
the genuineness in a flood of refutations. But such denials
only merit the belief or unbelief which the denial of every
defendant deserves. Only sound proof can turn the
scale against the genuineness of the Monita. And
such proofs have not been produced up to now by the
Jesuits. Nor has any convincing invalidation of the facts
advanced on behalf of its genuineness been produced.

The advocates of their genuineness rely essentially on

* Jesuitenfabeln, p. 91 et seq.

Criticism of the Inner Constitution

9

the fact that the manuscript copies of the Monita, upon
which the printed edition is based, were to be found
in Jesuit colleges. The discovery of such copies in the
colleges of Prague, Paris, Roermond (Holland), Munich,
and Paderborn is beyond question. The copy in the
Jesuit house at Paderborn was found “ in a cupboard in
the Rector’s room ” (in scriniis rectoris*). The manu-
script copy at Munich, belonging to the contents of the
library of the Jesuit college of this place, which was sup-
pressed in 1773, was only found in 1870 in a secret recess
behind the altar of the old Jesuit Church of St. Michael at
Munich. It would be a decisive token of genuineness if
it could be proved positively that the Prague copy was
already there in 1611 — i.e. before the first printed edition
of 1612. J. Friedrich’s statement - } - makes this seem prob-
able, but not certain. What the Jesuit Duhr t writes to
the contrary is of no value. It is certain, however, that
the discovery in Prague was so disagreeable to the Jesuits
that the chief champion of the spuriousness of the
Monita, the Jesuit Forer, considered it advisable to
pass it over in silence in his work of repudiation, Ana-
tomia Anatomiae Societatis Jesu. On the other hand, he
zealously demonstrated — what no one disputed — that
the copy at Paderborn was only brought to light after the
first edition had been published. Forer’s silence is the
more remarkable, as a manuscript note, intended for his
book, treats the Prague discovery as a fact. § The say-
ing that those who keep silence when they could and
should speak seem to give consent, comes to my mind in
the case of this ominous silence. ||

* Anatomia , p. 49. f J. Friedrich, Beitrage , p. 8.

% Jesuitenjabeln, p. 94. § Friedrich, pp. 9 and 65.

|j Cretin eau-Joly, who writes in the pay of the Jesuit Order, has indeed the
audacity to designate the discovery of the manuscript Monita , in the Jesuit
Colleges of Prague and Paderborn as “ a base historical lie ” (“ un grossier mensongt
historique ”). { Ilistoire de la Compagnie de Jt&us. Paris, 1844, III., 372, 2.)

10

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

I will give a few extracts from the edition in the
Arcana Societatis Jesu, 1635 (without place of publica-
tion), from the manuscript* found by Christian von
Braunschweig in a secret drawer belonging to the Rector
in the Jesuit college at Paderborn, adding my own
remarks.

“ What attitude ought the Society of Jesus to take
up on re-organisation ? ” The directions supplied (attain-
ment of the favour of the population through the render-
ing of services, almsgiving, edifying behaviour for the
edification of others) are in absolute harmony with the
Constitutions and rules.

“ How should the friendship of princes and other
great people be gained ? ” Although the means indi-
cated for ensuring princely favour cannot be verified in
detail from the statutes, the whole tendency of the pre-
cepts given corresponds with the official “ explanation ”
(Declar. B) to Part 10 of the Constitutions : “ Above all,
we should retain the goodwill ... of temporal princes
and great men and persons holding prominent posi-
tions.” f The practice of the Order also in greeting
and receiving princes with a display of magnificence and
grandiloquent speech harmonises with what is said on
this point.

“ What attitude must be taken up by court-chaplains
and princely confessors ? ” The answer suggests a com-
mentary to General Acquaviva’s “Ordinance” of 1602.
The confessors must seem to exercise reserve in political
matters.

“ Of their attitude to other religious Orders.” Quar-
rels with other Orders are recorded on almost every page
of Jesuit history. They arose mostly because the Society
of Jesus, under a pretence of humility ( haec minima
societas — this most humble society) represented itself

* Friedrich, pp. 4-32. f Inst. S.J., I., 130.

Criticism of the Inner Constitution n

as greater and superior in virtue and perfection to all
other Orders. The advice given for making good the
reputation of highest perfection everywhere is written
in the Order’s arrogant spirit, of which I shall speak later.

“ How may rich widows be kept well disposed towards
the Society of Jesus ? ” The chief directions in this sec-
tion concern the appointment of Jesuits as confessors
and spiritual guides, their interference in household regu-
lation and private affairs, incitations to donations and
alms-giving, and correspond to the actual attitude of the
Order, which I myself have observed in my home and in
many other houses of near relations. Especially the secur-
ing of money from wives and widows under the mask of
piety (confession and exercises) is a world-wide and
ancient malpractice of Jesuit confessors and spiritual
guides. The activity of the Jesuit Order in England at
the end of the sixteenth and beginning of the seven-
teenth century affords very interesting examples of
this. The English Jesuit, Gerard, relates of himself :
“ I also received many general confessions ; among
others that of a widow lady of high rank (Lady Lovel),
who for the rest of her days applied herself to good works
and gave me an annual sum of 1,000 florins for the
Society ; another widow (Mrs. Fortescue) gave 700 .” *

The Catholic priest, William Watson, reports more
fully : “In like manner he (the Jesuit Gerard) dealeth
with such gentlewomen as the Ladie Louell, Mistresse
Haywood, and Mistresse Wiseman, of whom he got so
much as now shee feeleth the want of it. By drawing
Mistress Fortescue, the widow of Master Edmond For-
tescue, into his exercise, he got of her a farme worth
50 pounds a yere and paid her no rent. Another drift
he hath by his exercise of cousinage : which is to perswade

* The Life of Fr. John Gerard (London, 1882), p. 63, quoted by Taunton.
History of the Jesuits in England (London, 1901), p. 162.

12

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

such gentlewomen, as haue large portions to their mar-
riage, to give the same to him and his companie, and to
become nuns. So he preuailed with two of Mr. William
Wiseman’s daughters, with Elizabeth Sherly, with Dorothy
Ruckwood, with Mary Tremaine, with Anna Arundell,
and with Lady Mary Percie.” * What is said in the
Monita of “careful excitement of the sensuous faculty”
in women and widows does not correspond with reality,
from my knowledge of facts.

“ Of the means by which sons and daughters of our
confessional children are to be brought to a spiritual
state.” The directions contain nothing which has not
been practised hundreds of times. The chapter, “ Of
the choice of young men for our Society and of the manner
of keeping a firm hold on them,” is taken from life.

“ What attitude should be taken up by our followers
in regard to those dismissed from the Order ? ” The
spreading of evil reports, here recommended, about those
who have either been dismissed or have withdrawn is
an almost regular practice. The advice to ill-treat those
to be dismissed and to hinder their advancement after dis-
missal is confirmed by the practice of the Order. The
German Jesuit, Streicher, relates in a confidential letter
(now in the State archives at Munich) from Spain, dating
from the eighteenth century, “ Half a year before dis-
missal the person to be dismissed is thrown into a dungeon
and there reduced ( maceratus ) by a diet of bread and
water. Every Friday he is brought, with chains fas-
tened on both feet, by a lay brother into the refectory,
and he must scourge himself there [before the others]. Our
members have also contrived that no one who has not
withdrawn for legitimate and conclusive reasons shall be
appointed to a parish or any other benefice.” f That this

* Decacordon of Ten QuocUibetical Questions (London, 1602), p. 89 et seq.

f Reprinted from Friedrich, Beitrage , p. 73 et seq.

Criticism of the Inner Constitution

13

inhumane treatment was customary not only in Spain is
proved by a saying of the Archbishop of Lemberg, Deme-
trius Sulkow, recorded by Harenberg * : “It is difficult
for the persons dismissed [by the Jesuits] to attain to any
ecclesiastical dignity . . . owing to the antipathy engen-
dered by the Jesuits in the King towards the persons
dismissed. It is certain that they wished to dissuade
me from appointing any persons dismissed from amongst
them to positions in my diocese, and when I asked
why, they replied, ‘ The person dismissed must vanish
into some obscure corner, so that he may not mislead
others.’ ”

From my own experience regarding the behaviour
of the Order towards dismissed persons, I shall give at
least one staggering case further on.

3. Is there a secret class of members existing side
by side with the grades of the Order mentioned in the
Constitutions? Are there affiliates of the Jesuit Order?

We saw in Chapter V. that the Jesuit Order does
not recognise so-called second and third Orders, such
as the Franciscans and Dominicans organised among the
laity, but that the Marian Congregations might be
characterised as third or second Orders of the Jesuits.
But however closely the Congreganists may have been
connected with the Jesuits, they were not attached to the
Order by the bond of obedience. This bond alone con-
stitutes real affiliates, and the Jesuit Order possesses
them.

The possibility of affiliates seems to me to be chiefly
indicated in two passages in the official “ Institute.” It
is stated in the Constitutions :

“ The Society in the broadest sense of the word com-

* Pragmatische Geschichte des Ordens der Jesuiten (Halle-Helmstadt, 1760),
II., 965.

i4

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

prises all who owe obedience to the General, also novices
and whoever, with the desire to live and die in the Society,
places himself in a position of probation for admission
into it and to any of the grades which will be discussed.” *
And the 129th Decree of the first General Congre-
gation (1558) is as follows :

“ May the laity who take the vows in a military
Christian Order be admitted into our Order, although it
must be supposed that they will not make their profession
in our Society ? Answer : They may be admitted.” f
In the first passage reference is made to those who owe
obedience to the General, including novices, and to others
who place themselves in a position of probation with the
desire to be admitted into the Society. Unless we assume
gross tautology, a distinction is drawn between those
mentioned in the first place and those in the second by
the “ and ” — i.e. those mentioned in the second place,
as opposed to those already belonging to the Order, the
novices, are “ in a position of probation,” but do not
(yet ?) belong to the Society — i.e. are consequently
affiliates.

The second passage clearly speaks of “ laity, who are
to be admitted into the Society without making their
profession.” I acknowledge that the word “ profession ”
may be understood in a restricted sense — i.e. in oppo-
sition to the vows of the coadjutors ; but the possibility
of understanding it in a general sense — i.e. in the sense of
the vows of the Order generally — cannot be denied. We
have, then, here also to do with affiliates.

Moreover, the Constitutions openly mention in Part
10 a class of members who might properly be styled
affiliates — namely, all those Jesuits who have become
bishops or cardinals.

* Constit. V., 1 ; Declar. A.
t Inst. S.J., I., 170.

Criticism of the Inner Constitution 15

“ He must also vow to God that if ever he is com-
pelled to accept any preferment outside the Society he
will at all times listen to the advice of the General for
the time being, or of any person appointed by him to
take his place ; and if he thinks what is so recommended
to be desirable, will perform it ; not that he who is pre-
ferred holds any member of the Society in the place
of the Superior, but that he desires of his own free
will to be bound in the sight of God to do that which
he shall perceive to be best for God’s service ; and is
content that there should be one to set it before him
in charity and Christian liberty, to the glory of God
and our Lord.” *

This regulation is, it is true, directly opposed to the
general canonical definitions, according to which a bishop
or cardinal is no longer bound by an oath to the superiors
of his Order (when he has been a member of an Order),
but only to the Pope (soli R. Pontifici), but it is for that
very reason a particularly striking example of the per-
tinacity with which the Jesuit Order retains those belong-
ing to it in bondage, in the interests and through the
egotism of the Order. Ecclesiastical decisions do not regu-
late its conduct, but its own interests and extension and
the consolidation of its own power.

It will also be observed how skilfully the words chosen
conceal their opposition to the canonical law. The Jesuit
who has become a prelate has no Superior in the Society
— this is not allowed. He only chooses “ of his own free
will ” someone to obey, and this happens to be the General
of the Order.

Thus all bishops and cardinals chosen from the Jesuit
Order are its affiliates according to the Constitutions, f

Let us, however, disregard what the Constitutions

*

♦Constit. X., 1, 6.

See Chapter XIV. for the vow of the professed Jesuits.

i6

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

say, secretly or openly, regarding affiliates. The histori-
cal fact of their existence is clear and unmistakable.

The founder of the Jesuit Order, Ignatius Loyola,
made a number of affiliations. Thus the Spaniard,
Miguel Torres, whom Ignatius called “ the apple of his
eye,” lived as a man of the world. No one knew that
he was a Jesuit and that Ignatius himself had admitted
him years previously into the Order. Francis Borgia
governed his Duchy of Gandia, living outwardly as a
duke, although he had already four years previously
made the Jesuit profession with Ignatius’s consent. And
when Borgia was canonised in 1724 by Benedict XIII.,
reference to his affiliation was even inserted in the bull
of canonisation :

“ Whilst still Duke of Gandia he was permitted by
our predecessor, Paul III., at St. Ignatius’s request, to
take the vows with the knowledge of only a few members
of the Order. He was granted four years by the Pope
to arrange his affairs.” *

Ignatius did the same with the rich Spanish abbot,
Domenech, and the secular priest, Vergara, who nearly
became Grand Inquisitor of Spain whilst still a secret
Jesuit. The Infant Dom Luis of Portugal also joined
Ignatius’s Order as an affiliate. f

We have even a positive theoretical recognition of
affiliation by Ignatius. Ex-members of other Orders
wished openly to join the Jesuit Order. Ignatius rejected
the open union, but caused his secretary, the Jesuit
Polanco, to write in general terms :

“ I observe that some are joining the Society and help-
ing it according to the talent given them by God, and
although they are really not Professed, Coadjutors, nor

* Inst. SJ. (Prague, 1757), I., 181.

f The evidence is given by Gothein. Ignatius von Loyola und die Gegenreforma -
tion (Halle, 1895), pp. 359 et seq . and 788.

Criticism of the Inner Constitution 17

Scholastics, they faithfully perform the same duties as
these, and may, on their part, possess the merit of obedi-
ence.” *

In an Italian record, dating from 1617,f regarding the
aims of the Society of Jesus and the means of attaining
them, we are told :

“ That the Jesuits in England had succeeded in
appointing an archpriest, who was a Jesuit by vow
(hcmno fatto eleggere uno arciprete Giesuita in voto), and
who had persecuted the priests outside the Jesuit Order
like a ravening wolf, brought them to extreme distress,
and been so successful that almost all the priests in
England were Jesuits by vow ” ( Giesuiti in voto ). $

Prince William of Orange forwarded to his ambassador
in London, Dykvelt, an intercepted letter from the Jesuits
of Liege to the members of their Order in Ereiburg-i.-Br.,
in which it was stated that the King of England,
James II., the father-in-law of the Prince of Orange,
had become an affiliate of the Jesuit Order. Even
Cretineau-Joly did not dare to pronounce the letter
apocryphal. He only says, “ Authentique ou controuvee
. . . une correspondance dont Voriginal n’a jamais pu
etre represente.” § J. Friedrich supplies a valuable con-
firmation of the affiliation of the English king here re-
ported, in an original letter from the Jesuit Ruga, in
London on March 13th, 1687, to the Jesuit Pusterla in
Milan, which is to be found amongst the Jesuit papers
in the State Library at Munich. [| The Jesuit Ruga there
says that, at the firstjaudience which he obtained soon
after his arrival in England, James II. said to him, “ I

* Gottliein, Ibid ., p. 3GI.

f Reprinted in D61Iinger-Reusch,fAIoraZ,s£m7«<7&ei7ett, II., 376-390.

J Ibid., p. 388. § Ilistoire de la Compagnie de Jesus, 4, 174.

\\ Codex lat. Mon., 26, 473, ^f. 311; Friedrich: Beitrage zur Geschichte des
J esuitenordens (Munich, £1881), pp. 30, 78; Abliandlung der Icgl. bayerischen
Akademie der Wissenschajten, Class III.^Vol. XVI., Part 1.

C

i8

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

am a son of the Society of Jesus,” and the Queen, “ I am
its daughter.” A few days after this the Queen repeated
to him, “ It is my ambition to be a daughter of the Society
of Jesus.”

A document of the seventeenth century, “ Instruc-
tions for Princes as to how the Jesuit Fathers rule,” *
speaks openly of affiliation.

“ There is a class of secular Jesuits of both sexes,
which, with blind obedience, attaches itself to the Society,
adjusting all its actions in accordance with the advice of
the Jesuits and obeying all their commands. This is
mostly composed of gentlemen and ladies of rank, especi-
ally widows, also citizens or very rich merchants. Women
especially are led on to renounce the world by the Jesuits,
who then receive from them pearls, garments, furniture,
and revenues. Another class of Jesuits consists of men
holding clerical and lay positions, who live in the world
supported by the Order and obtain pensions, abbeys,
and benefices through it. These must solemnly promise
to put on the garb of the Order at the General’s com-
mand ; they are called Jesuits in voto. The Order makes
wonderful use of them for the support of its rule. They
are kept at courts and near the most prominent people
in all kingdoms, so that they may act as spies and give
an account of all that is transacted to the General of the
Order.”

A despatch of the Paris Nuncio of February 8th, 1773,
communicated by Theiner,t coincides with this asser-
tion :

“ Far from acquiescing in the dissolution of the
Jesuits, I know from her [Madame Louise, Carmelite,
daughter of Louis XV. of France] that not only is she
convinced that the suppression will never come to pass,

* Manuscript of the Parisian BibliothSque Nationale , fonds italiens , No. 986.

| Geschichte des Pontifikats Klemens XIV. (Leipzig, 1853), II., 321.

Criticism of the Inner Constitution 19

but also that the Pope has not sufficient authority to
carry it out. This is also the opinion which all Jesuit
tertiaries secretly propagate everywhere.”

Therefore such a well-informed man as the Papal
Nuncio recognises the existence of “ Jesuit tertiaries ”
as a matter of course. Since, however, the Jesuit Order
does not possess real tertiaries — i.e. a third Order, as the
Dominicans and Pranciscans do — only affiliates of the
Order can be understood when the expression chosen
by the Nuncio is used.

Saint-Simon also recognises affiliates.

“ The Jesuits always have lay members in all the
professions. This is a positive fact. Doubtless Noyers,
Louis XIII.’s secretary, belonged to them, and also many
others. These affiliates take the same vows as the
Jesuits so far as their position allows — i.e. the vow of
absolute obedience to the General and the Superiors of
the Order. They are to substitute for the vows of poverty
and chastity the service rendered and protection afforded
to the Society, and especially unlimited submission to
the Superiors and confessor. . . . Politics thus come
within their scope through the certain help of these
secret allies.” *

The Jesuit Lallemant reported in 1642 from Canada
that there, with the consent of the Provincial of the
French Province, to which Canada belonged, lay mem-
bers were attached to the Society of Jesus. They took
the vow to serve the Jesuit Order throughout their whole
life wherever their services were required. The vow
was modelled on one which was previously commonly
used, with the consent of the General, in the Champagne
Province of the Order. It was taken secretly, without
outward ceremony, in presence of the confessor. Those
joined to the Jesuit Order in this manner received the

* Memoir es, 12 , 164 .

20

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

official designation, “ Donnes .” * This points to a whole
class of affiliates.

We also meet with the same arrangement in the
English Province of the Order. In the “ Records of the
English Province,” | published by the Jesuit Foley (a
lay brother), the following entry is to be found :

“ Oliver, George, Rev., D.D., born in Newington,
Surrey, on February 9th, 1781 ; ordained priest in 1806.
He was the last survivor of a number of Catholic clergy-
men, scholars of the English Jesuits, who, though never
entering the Society, always remained in the service of
the English Province [of the Order] and subject to its
[the English Province’s] Superiors. . . . He died at
Exeter a few years after 1851.”

In England, therefore, the institution of affiliates,
already mentioned, in 1617, was maintained for nearly
two hundred and fifty years — to 1851.

These historical events are so convincing that the
secret institution of affiliates must be admitted as an
irrefutable fact.

To be sure, the Jesuits still deny the proofs which
I have brought forward and which are also known to
them, suppress them, and content themselves with an
avowal of the existence of affiliates during the first period
of the Order. Thus the arch-falsifier, the Jesuit Duhr,
who has already been unmasked frequently and will be
unmasked yet again, writes :

“ A few cases in (sic) the difficulties of the first period do
not give any right to generalise or speak of an ‘Institution.’ ”i

“ The few cases of the first period ” (which Duhr
carefully suppresses, however) are the above-mentioned
affiliations of Duke Francis Borgia, Miguel Torres, etc.

* The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents (Cleveland, Burrow Brothers and
Company), XXI., 293 et seq.
f VII., 559*

J Duhr, S.J., J esuitenfabeln (4), p» 921.

Criticism of the Inner Constitution 21

Moreover, everything is really admitted by the avowal
that there were affiliates during the first period. For
what was then possible and actual, “ owing to special cir-
cumstances,” is always possible, and will always be actual
when the special circumstances again occur. Their occur-
rence consequently only depends upon the will of the
Superiors of the Order. If they declare that the circum-
stances have occurred, they have occurred.

4, Are the Constitutions of the Order, and the Jesuit
Order itself, authoritatively directed against Lutheranism
and generally against heresy ?

A distinction must here be drawn between the form
and the matter, as in the question of the genuineness or
spuriousness of the Monita. Ignatius Loyola, when
founding his Order and drawing up his Constitutions,
can scarcely, indeed, have had Lutheranism and heresy
formally in mind. It is certain, however, that the Jesuit
Order from its very foundation actually considered the
combat with heresy, and especially Lutheranism, to be
its chief task. "VYe have the strongest evidence of this.

Urban YIII.’s Bull of Canonisation of Ignatius Loyola
in 1623 states :

“ God’s inexpressible goodness and mercy, which
provides for every age in wonderful ways, raised up the
mind of Ignatius Loyola . . . when Luther, that hor-
rible monster ( monstrum teterrimum), and the other
detestable plagues ( aliaeque detestabiles pestes), with their
blasphemous tongues,* strove to destroy in the northern
regions the ancient religion, with all its sanctity and

* What extraordinary expressions (let us take this opportunity of remarking)
the Papacy employs, even in its most authoritative proclamations, against the
Reformation and the Reformers ! Rome is not bound by scruples or dignity of
utterance when heretics are in question. Then the most vulgar abuse is in place.
It claims as its right not only freedom to abuse, but also to anathematise. I cer-
tainly do not recommend that the Papal tone should be imitated by the non-
ultramontane party. But we must not marvel too much when this occurs.

22

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

its ideal of a perfect life, and to degrade the authority of
the apostolic see. This Loyola surrendered himself so
implicitly to the guidance and fashioning of the Divine
authority . . . that after the establishment of the new
Order of the Society of Jesus, which, amongst other works
of piety and love, entirely devoted itself, according to
its Constitutions, to the conversion of the heathen and
the leading back of heretics to the true faith,* he came
to a saintly end.”

The conclusiveness of this Papal pronouncement is
strengthened greatly by a remark of Cardinal Monte,
which he addressed to Pope Gregory XY. in the secret
consistory in connection with the canonisation of Ignatius
Loyola in 1622 :

“ When in the previous century the devil sowed tares
in the well-tilled and prepared field of the Church and
tried to undermine religion by Luther’s blasphemous
tongue in Germany and Henry VIII.’s unprecedented
ferocity in England, God’s inexpressible goodness and
mercy . . . raised up Ignatius Loyola.” f

It is explicable, therefore, that Clement XIV. actu-
ally states in the Brief, “ Dominus ac Redemptor ,” of July
21st, 1773, by which he suppressed the Jesuit Order :

“ It is certain that the Jesuit Order was founded
... for the conversion of heretics.”

The official historian of the Order, Cretineau-Joly, who
wrote his voluminous work with the material and intellec-
tual support of the Order, also lets slip this admission :

“ In the Society of Jesus missions are of secondary
importance ( accessories ). The chief object is . . . the
battle against heresy in Europe.” J

Numerous proofs from the sphere of the Order itself

* Inst. S.J. (Prague, 1757), I., 119 el seq.

t Dollinger-Reusch, Selbstbiogrctphie des Kardinals Bdlarmin , p. 336.

J Histoire de la Compagnie de Jtsus, I., 318.

Criticism of the Inner Constitution 23

can also, of course, be produced of the extreme hostility
of the Jesuit Order to heresy, even though the Constitu-
tions be not actually directed against it.

Thus, to begin with the founder of the Order, the
activity of Ignatius in the interests of the Inquisition is
especially noteworthy. He writes, in 1542, to his fellow
member, Simon Rodriguez, in Lisbon, that Pope Paul
III., at his instigation, has decided to set up a Cardinal’s
Congregation of the Inquisition. Thus Ignatius Loyola
is the intellectual originator of the Roman Inquisition
which exists even to this day,* and of its bloodshed.
Ignatius also tried his hardest to prevail on Paul III. to
consent to the request of John III. of Portugal and
establish the Inquisition there on the same lines as in
Spain. Indeed, in a letter to the Jesuit Miron, of June
20th, 1555, he declares that he is prepared to place mem-
bers of his Order at the head of the Portuguese Inquisi-
tion, but wishes, so as to keep up appearances, that
this should be done at the express command of the Pope.f
The matter fell through, however.

The hatred of heretics, and not only heresy, which
blazed up in the Inquisition to a bloody persecuting fury,
is therefore a pious legacy to Jesuits from their founder.
They guard the inheritance carefully and augment it
forcibly by putting themselves forward in their writings,
from the commencement of their existence to the present
day, as definite supporters of the bloody persecution
of heretics. I refer to the leading theologians of the
Jesuit Order — Tanner, Laymann, Castropalao (seven-
teenth century) ; Perrone, Wenig, de Luca, Granderath,
Laurentius (nineteenth and twentieth centuries).^

* Cartas de San Ignacio (Madrid, 1874), I., 132, quoted by Druffel ; Ignatius
von Loyola an der romischen Kurie (Munich, 1879), pp. 12 and 38.

f Genelli, S. J., Leben des M. Ignatius von Loyola (Innsbruck, 1848), p. 256 et seq.

J Cf. my work, Moderner Staat und romische Kirche (Berlin : C. A. Schwetschke
u. Sohn), pp. 146 et seq §

24

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

Some passages from one of the most outstanding works
in Jesuit literature and from the official Ratio Studi-
orum of the Order may still further illustrate theoretic-
ally its hatred of heretics, while a historical occurrence
and a personal experience may supply practical illus-
tration.

We read in the Imago primi saeculi :

“ A time ago it was 1617. The Lutherans reckoned
this as the centenary of their godless religion, because a
hundred years before there appeared the first sparks of
the pestilential flame, which afterwards spread quickly,
with a hopeless fury, like a storm, first through Germany
and then through some neighbouring provinces. . . .
Ignatius, whom God in His eternal wisdom raised up to
oppose Luther, shall confront him in our work, too. . . .
In presence of Ignatius does Luther, the stigma of Ger-
many, the Epicurean swine, the ruin of Europe, the
monster who brought disaster on the globe, the outcast
of God and man, deserve a centenary jubilee ? * After
Luther, false to God and religion, had forsaken the ancient
faith, he was joined by a mob of petty schoolmasters,
insolent grammarians, degenerate poets, frivolous little
Hellenists, drunken orators, and Heaven knows what
other ridiculous objects of philosophers and philologists.
The dregs of the population, cobblers, dyers, butchers, and
weavers followed their example. . . . From all sides
streamed together the most vicious people — persons
notorious through infamy, condemned by judges, bear-
ing visible brands of shame . . . they trampled down
everything humane and godly. ... In front marched
Luther, carrying the godless torch which, in the form of
an abominable treatise, tried to make all believe that
unchastity was more necessary than food, drink, and
sleep. . . . This infamous apostate [Luther] led to

* Imago primi saeculi, pp. 18 el seq .

Criticism of the Inner Constitution 25

battle ignorant persons, who bad sprung from foul dens
and the lowest dregs, of godless and infamous life, notori-
ous through immorality, harpies of the Holy Scripture.
With what an honourable and well-equipped host —
really with word and deed — did the Society of Jesus
oppose him.* Certainly we do not deny that we have
entered into a bitter and eternal struggle for the Catholic
religion against heresy. Like St. Jerome, each of us says
to-day, ‘ I cannot agree with you on one point — namely,
that I spare the heretics [not “ heresy ” ; hciereticis, not
lmeresi ] and do not prove myself a Catholic. If this is
the reason of our disagreement, I can die, but I cannot be
silent.’ It is in vain for heresy to expect to attain friend-
ship with the Society of Jesus through silence alone. As
long as there is life in us, we will bark at the wolves for
the defence of the Catholic flock. Peace is out of the
question ; the seed of hate is innate within us (Desperata
pax est, odii semina innata sunt). Ignatius is for us what
Hamilcar was for Hannibal. At his command, we have
sworn eternal war at the altars.” f

In the Ratio Studiorurn the thirteenth “ rule for the
external students of the Order ” is as follows :

“ They must not go to public exhibitions, comedies,
or plays, nor to executions of criminals, except perhaps
of heretics.”

This fine injunction remained in force to 1832. Only
then — when, indeed, there were no longer executions of
heretics — was the permission to Jesuit scholars, boys of
tender age, to find edification in executions of heretics
cancelled.

The historical event — one of many — was the “ Mas-
sacre of Thorn,” brought about by the Jesuits.

On July 17th, 1724, the Jesuit College at Thorn was
destroyed by a section of the students and population. A

t Pp. 843 et seq.

* Pp. 550-552.

26

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

Protestant had not bared his head whilst a procession
was passing by, and because a student of the Jesuit col-
lege struck off his hat, the fanatical Jesuit scholar was
thrown into prison by the Protestant magistrate. This
led to a great disturbance, and the destruction of the
Jesuit establishment on the following day. The matter
came before the high court of justice and the assessorial
court at Warsaw; and the president and vice-president
of Thorn, Posner and Zerneke, as well as nine citizens of
Thorn, were condemned to death.

This terrible sentence was mainly due to an inflam-
matory speech delivered to the judges on October 31st
by one of the Jesuits.

“ ‘ Oh, thou Mother of God, thou has fallen amongst
Tartar heathendom at Thorn. See how the godless
trample thee under foot ! . . . Thou art no Queen in
Poland to the inhabitants of Thorn ; rather has a godless
and most ignominious insult transformed thee into a
wench condemned to the pyre.’ The Jesuit recalled to
mind the oaths taken by the judges in the Marian Con-
gregations, ‘ I will never permit anything against thine
honour to be done by my subordinates.’ * . . . The
crucified God entreats and stretches out the hand hacked
off by the inhabitants of Thorn, ‘ Do right and further
justice ! . . . The head of the serpent must be bruised.
... I could here speak on behalf of my house, but
the wounds of my brothers [the Jesuits], caused by here-
tical hands, are marks of honour in suffering disgrace for
Jesus’ sake. I do not ask for corporal or capital punish-
ment ; being a priest, I do not thirst for blood.’ ” f

The further details of the affair show what was really

* A very instructive example of the trenchant effect of the Congregations on
the public life.

f Diarius von dem in Thorn a. 1724, d. 17, Juli entstandenen Tumulte und darau
erfolgten Jesuitischen Prozessus , VIII., 51 ; Stddtisches Archiv zu Thorn ; Jacobi,
Das Thorner Blutgericht , 1724 (Halle, 1896), pp. 91 et seq. and 173.

Criticism of the Inner Constitution 27

intended by this hypocritical expression of gentleness on
the part of the Jesuits.

To the sentence of death was added the rider : The
sentence is only to be carried out if a Jesuit, together
with six conjurors from the Polish nobility, shall corro-
borate on oath the guilt of the accused. This oath was
taken by a Jesuit at the command of the Jesuit Rector,
and the heretics were put to death on December 7th,
1724, in the cruel manner then customary.

Leaving all non-essentials out of the question, this
much is certain — that the lives of nine people, whose
offence consisted in the fact that they had not prevented
the destruction of a house belonging to the Jesuits,
depended on the oath of the Jesuits. The Jesuits took
the oath, and the lives of the nine were forfeit.

I put the question, “ Who and what are Jesuits ? ”
They themselves reply, “ A band of people following Jesus
in a quite special manner, and making His principles their
own.” The religious and ethical significance of the
massacre at Thorn instigated by the Jesuits lies in this
question and answer : The strongest antithesis to Jesus
Christ, the most furious hate towards “ heretics.”

A few events connected with the murderous oath of the
Jesuits set it in the worst of lights.

The Papal Nuncio, Santini, begged the Rector of the
Jesuit College in a letter not to permit the oath to be
taken, so as not to be the cause of a ninefold murder.
He made this request to the Jesuit Superior by agree-
ment with and at the desire of the Polish Lord High
Chancellor, who considered that “ such an action would
be in keeping with the sanctity of their [the Jesuits’]
position.” * The letter was placed in the Jesuit Superior’s
hands in good time, as is shown by his answer, dated

* Text of the entire letter : Leben und Tate Papst Benedihti XIII. (Frankfort,
1731), I., 714.

28

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

December 10th, 1724. Though the “ Annual Reports of
the College of Thorn,” drawn up by the Jesuits, state
that it came a day too late, these “Annual Reports” deserve
no credence, as they contain entirely uncontrolled Jesuit
statements and are also contradicted by the reply of
the Rector to the Nuncio’s letter. Besides, it is certain
that the judges drew the Jesuit Rector’s attention,
directly before the oath was sworn, to the fact that the
Papal Nuncio had advised him against it. But for all
that the Jesuit permitted his subordinates to take the
oath.

Moreover, a real piece of Jesuit cunning and Roman-
ultramontane hypocrisy came to light during and after
the act of swearing. When the judicial assembly of Thorn
saw the Jesuit with his six conjurors before it, ready to
take the oath, attention was drawn to the fact that,
according to the canonical law, priests might not assist
in a death sentence, and the oath to be taken involved such
assistance. The Jesuit Rector replied that he knew the
prohibition, but it did not apply here, because the Jesuit
whom he had chosen to take the oath was a lay brother
— i.e. not a priest ! *

After the oath, which resulted in torture and death
for the nine unfortunate men, the Jesuits, with tears,
implored mercy for the condemned. They thereby
assumed a real and fitting Inquisitorial hypocrisy, which
the Papacy carried on for centuries so as to be able to
justify outwardly the noble expression, “ The Church
does not thirst for blood.” f

After the actual drama had taken place, the bearing
of the Jesuits remained worthy of the beginning and

* With reference to the infamous Jesuit action at Thorn, c/. Jacobi, Das Thorner
Bluigericht .

•f Cf. my work, Das Papsttum , etc., in which I have exposed the abso-
lutely infamous untruthfulness of this Popish entreaty for the life of the heretics
condemned by the Popish Inquisition.

Criticism of the Inner Constitution 29

continuation. Greed for the possessions of the heretics
was associated with bloodthirstiness against the heretics.

In the judgment, the excessive compensation of
36,400 florins was awarded to the Jesuits. This was
finally reduced to 22,000 florins after the Jesuits had
shown themselves very obstinate in their demands. Eight
thousand florins were to be paid them in cash, and for
the remaining 14,000 florins they received the municipal
estates of Lonzyn and Wengorzyn. The estates were
only to revert again to the municipality on the payment
of 14,000 florins, together with interest at 6 per cent.
The estates remained in the Jesuits’ hands till the autumn
of 1730. The town found it very difficult to raise the
8,000 florins in cash. A merchant, Marianski, advanced
this sum to it, taking as security the plate of one of the
executed men, the Burgomaster Roesner, and the Jesuits
quietly pocketed this sum, which might doubly be termed
blood-money. *

This is unsurpassed hate on a large scale. A personal
experience may show in what a paltry manner hatred of
heresy may be expressed.

When I was stationed in 1889 at Exaeten, as “ scrip-
tor,” the Geschichte des deutschen Volkes, by Johannes
Jansen, was read aloud at table. In connection with
this the question arose during recreation as to whether
we should put the accent on the second or first syllable
of the word “ lutherisch.” I was of opinion (mistakenly,
however) that the pronunciation “ lutherisch ” expressed
more contempt than the pronunciation “ lutherisch .”
Accordingly, I requested the Praefectus lectionis ad
mensam, the Jesuit Spiellmann (then chief editor of the
magazine Katholische Missionen , and a writer of juvenile
works which were very much read in Germany), to put
a stop to the contemptuous pronunciation “ lutherisch ”

* Jacobi, Das T homer Blutgericht , pp. 137 et seq .

3 °

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

during the reading at table. This suggestion was indig-
nantly received ; it was considered that the more con-
temptuously this word was pronounced the better. And
from that time onwards, as often as a reader said “ luthe-
risch ,” the “ vepelat ” of the Jesuit Spiellmann resounded
with especial emphasis. It was desirable that the con-
temptuous “ lutherisch ” should be drummed into the
young scholastics (it was they who read aloud).

THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDER

As the Society of Jesus, the Jesuit Order prides itself
on possessing in a quite special manner the spirit of
Jesus Christ. The opposite is the case.

Whoever reads the Constitutions of the Order care-
fully will at once notice how very highly they esteem
wealth, rank, prominent position, and, in short, that which
is desirable and coveted from a worldly point of view,
whereas Christ’s teaching stands in sharpest contrast.
He designates the lowly, the poor, the small, the insigni-
ficant, the despised, as His own.

As I shall deal in separate sections with the arrogance
of the Order, its craving after honours and wealth, and
similar important points, I will here give only a few
selections from the Constitutions in order to illustrate
the conflict between the “ Society of Jesus ” and Jesus.

In the choice of a person for the position of General
the man who, as the head of the Society of Jesus, should
therefore most resemble Jesus, nobility of birth, the
possessions which he had in the world, honours and the
like, are considered as desirable qualifications.

Noble birth and riches serve likewise as grounds for
admission to the profession of the three vows. Though
not expressly mentioned in the Constitutions, both the

Criticism of the Inner Constitution 31

exponents whom I have to thank for my intimate know-
ledge of the subject, my Novice-Master, the Jesuit
Meschler, and my Instructor during the Tertiate, the
Jesuit Oswald, always quoted them at the appropriate
point in their instructions.

The Constitutions allow women of rank an exceptional
position as compared with those of the middle class.

Finally, the all-permeating spirit of worldly wisdom —
of course expressed in unctuous religious form — stands
out in the words :

“ Above all things, it is necessary to retain the good-
will of the Apostolic See . . . next, that of princes and
great men ( magnatum ) and persons holding prominent
positions, upon whose favour or disfavour it depends to
a large extent whether the way be open or closed for the
service of God and for the salvation of souls.”*

Such instructions do not exactly breathe the spirit of
Jesus Christ.

We have seen already in the description of its educa-
tional activity how this worldly, arrogant and selfish
spirit influences the conduct of the Order in such things
as magnificent buildings and exhibitions, preference for
the nobility and contemptuous treatment of poor scholars.
We shall encounter it in a still more pronounced form in
other domains of the extensive Jesuit field of labour. It
is so evident that it strikes all who come in close touch
with Jesuits. A remark made by the first Cardinal Arch-
bishop of Westminster, Nicholas Wiseman, the author of
the much-read book Fabiola, may here be quoted in
place of numerous proofs. Wiseman writes to his friend,
the Oratorian father, Frederick William Faber, in a con-
fidential letter, dated October 27th, 1852 :

“ The Jesuits have a splendid church, a large house,
several priests. . . . Scarcely was I settled in London,

t * Const. X. ; Declar. B,

32

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

than I applied to their Superior to establish here a
community in due form of some ten or twelve fathers.
I also asked for missionaries to give retreats to congrega-
tions, etc. I was answered on both heads, that dearth
of subjects made it impossible. Hence, we have under
them only a church, which by its splendour attracts and
absorbs the wealth of two parishes, but maintains no
schools, and contributes nothing to the education of the
poor at its very door. I could say more, but I
forbear.”*

A second characteristic of the Constitutions is their
cosmopolitanism. When this point is discussed, the
Jesuits reply (and I myself believed for a considerable
time in the validity of the answer) : “ We are no more
and no less international than Christianity.” This is
false and a lie when spoken by Jesuits.

No doubt Christianity desires to spread amongst all
nations, but not to deprive any nation of its individuality,
nor does it aim at reducing all nationalities to a dead
level. This is, however, just the aim systematically
pursued by the Jesuit Order. It discourages most severely
every national movement and every national peculiarity ;
and that not only in the case of its own members. The
same international levelling effort is brought to bear on
the young people entrusted to it for education.

Kink tells us that a national colouring could not be
given to Jesuit instruction, if only because the teaching
staff of the Order was composed of men from all lands
of Catholic Christendom. Although the Emperor Fer-
dinand I. had commanded, in 1558, that the Jesuits who
occupied the two theological chairs [in Vienna] should
also have a mastery of the German language, his order
was not obeyed. It frequently occurred later on that
not even one of the Jesuits teaching at the University

* Purcell, Lijc of Cardinal Manning (London, 1895), II., 3.

Criticism of the Inner Constitution 33

could understand German, and that many government
decrees had to be translated into Latin on their ac-
count.*

As I have minutely discussed the internationalism of
Jesuit instruction and education in previous chapters, I
will not go further into it here. I have already quoted the
text of the cosmopolitan and unpatriotic rule of the
Order — the 43rd of the Summarium. This is illustrated
in an extremely instructive manner by the secret report
of a Visitatorf of the Upper German Province of the
Order in 1596 :

“ I do not refer to the party divisions between Catholics
and heretics, for the heretics are not worthy of being
included under the word ‘ Christian ’ [in the rule quoted],
because, on account of their faithless life, they oppose
Christ and true Christians. Nor do I believe that this
rule prevents us from rejoicing at the victory of Catholics
over heretics, or forbids us to deplore in our discourses
the hostility between Catholics brought about by the
heretics. ... To this is due the misfortune that there
are some people in our Society who have not a good
opinion of the brothers outside our nationality, and who
occasionally, in jest and earnest, unkindly censure their
customs and their national failings, and cannot bear that
such should be sent into this province. This is a very
bad fault. It is to be shunned like the plague, and the
old confidential intercourse between the different nations
is very desirable and should be revived. Formerly there
was scarcely a greater ornament of the Society — it was
almost a miracle — than that members of such different
nationalities should dwell amongst one another on such
friendly terms. When this unity ceases, how can we

♦ Oeschichte der kaiserl. Universitcit Wien (Vienna, 1854), I., 410.
t A Visitator is a Jesuit commissioned by the General of the Order for the
inspection of one or several provinces of the Order.

D

34

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

speak of a Society, and how can it exist ? . . . May
those be cut off who disturb this harmony, and rend the
seamless mantle of the Society with their poisonous
tongues.”*

Cosmopolitanism is particularly noticeable in the
mixture of the various nations within the individual
Provinces of the Order. The German Province, to which
I belonged, numbered Danes, Swedes, English, North
Americans, Brazilians, Irish, Dutch, Swiss and Austrians
amongst its members. I have already mentioned that
Alsatians (before 1870) and French Swiss were rectors of
the German school at Feldkirch.

The destruction of national sentiment is inevitably
connected with cosmopolitanism. To quote from my
first little book against the Jesuit Order :f

“ Even if we merely conceive the Order as a whole and as
what it is meant to be — an organism animated by the same life,
the same feelings and the same thoughts — it becomes clear that
there can be no question of fostering or even maintaining patri-
otism. If Germans and French, English and Russians, Poles,
Spaniards, Italians, Americans, Swedes, Danes, Hungarians,
Japanese and Chinese are to be permeated with the same senti-
ment, the distinct characteristics which each one of these nations
possesses must be suppressed, but it is just in this distinct and
characteristic trait that the centre of gravity of patriotism lies.

“It is useless to point to Christianity, which also desires to
animate all these national dissimilarities with one spirit and yet
does not kill patriotism; In Christianity this one spirit is super-
natural, directed towards the world beyond. Christianity unites
the nations in an ideal community, and, above all, Christianity
leaves each member, the individual Christian, in the place and
circumstances in which he was born and bred, and does not mix

* Reusch, Beitrdge zur Geschichte des J esuiienordens : Zcitschrift fur Kirchen -
geschichte , 1894, XV., 2, p. 204 et seq.

t Mein Austritt aus dem J tsuitcnorden (Leipzig, Breitkopf und Hartel.), 10th
thousand, p. 36 et seq.

Criticism of the Inner Constitution 35

up peoples and nations. But Jesuitism, though also striving after
an ideal, and though also aiming at an ideal community, belongs
absolutely to this world in its social aims, for nobody could
seriously assert that the Jesuit Order would persist as an Order
in the world to come. Its methods, therefore, for attaining this
temporal ideal of unity are also directed towards this world, i.e ;
even in this world, national, social and political diversities must
disappear as much as possible, so far as the members of the Jesuit
Order are concerned. The more cosmopolitan the Jesuit, the
less attached to native country and home in his feelings as well as
in his actions (this point is important), the more indifferently he
views the form of government under which he lives, the better
he is and the nearer does he approach to the ideal of a Jesuit.

“ In this connection, the term which almost takes the place
of the word ‘ patriotism 5 in the Constitutions of the Jesuit Order
is very characteristic. The Jesuit should be animated by universal
love (universalis amor) towards the Christian nations and princes.
And this must be so; it cannot, indeed, be otherwise, if the Jesuit
wishes to be what he ought to be.

“It is impressed upon the Jesuit, from his very admission to
the Society until the end of his life, that he exists for the world
and not for this or that nation. He is made to understand this
practically by being despatched to the most dissimilar countries.
He goes from Germany to France, America, India, Brazil, Italy
and Sweden, and in each he has to accommodate himself as exactly
as possible to the existing social and political conditions, and
adapt himself to the character and views of the people.

“ Such a system may produce forces working with irreproach-
able uniformity, but not patriots.

“ I have already defined patriotism as self-sacrificing love of
our native land. By native land, however, I do not only mean
the land i.e. the fields, woods, mountains and rivers, but above
all, the social and political institutions of the land in question,
and the ancient and traditional arrangements upon which its
inner life rests. A real patriot must love these, too, devotedly.
Thus, for example, real patriotism with regard to Germany is
necessarily connected with a monarchical sentiment. If within a
society the adherence of the members to hereditary and national

36

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

institutions is diminished by the system then prevailing, their
patriotism is also destroyed. If, in spite of this, the individual
member preserves true patriotism, he does so in opposition to the
system. No further exposition is required to show that the Jesuit
system must level away patriotism. So international a Society,
consisting of so many heterogeneous national elements must strive
for the abandonment of monarchical or republican preferences.

“ Besides their chief domiciles which are situated abroad, the
German Jesuits have their greatest field of work in lands across
the sea, such as South America and British India, which are both
republican and monarchical. That state of affairs has nothing to
do with their expulsion from Germany. Within this great sphere,
comprising such numerous and such vast national and political
differences as Europe, America, and Asia, the German Jesuit has
to live and work, not as a permanent resident, however, but with
the pilgrim’s staff in his hand. Now he is in the free North American
republic, now in monarchical India, now in Brazil, which is always
in a state of political ferment, now he is recalled from any one of
these lands to work in the old monarchical European states, as
teacher, educator, preacher and superior. He would not be
human if he did not lose little by little the old national,
patriotic form of sentiment and perception, and gradually assume
the universal form of cosmopolitanism.”

In presence of these and similar developments, the
Jesuit Order makes a great boast of its patriotic activity
during the campaign of 1870-71, when the German
Province of the Order sent many of its members into the
German military hospitals to nurse there, “ for love of
the Fatherland.”

In the first place, there is really no reason to boast
of this work of mercy as something unusual. If the
“German” Jesuits had avoided giving assistance, it
would have been simply disgraceful, and — as they knew
very well — they would have damaged their reputation
very much. But the patriotic motive for the assistance
may well be impugned. The cosmopolitanism of the

Criticism of the Inner Constitution 37

Order is also displayed in this patriotic work. There
were, for example, fifty non-Germans amongst the
“ German ” Jesuits nursing “ from patriotic motives,”
including Swiss, Austrians, Dutch, Luxemburgers and
Irish. The statistics which the Jesuit M. Rist has added
as an appendix to his vainglorious book, Die deutschen
Jesuiten auf den ScMachtfeldern und in den Lazaretten
1866 und 1870-71,* reveal this imposing number of
“ Germans.” Now, with the best intentions, we cannot
speak of German patriotism in the case of these fifty
foreigners, and when amongst one hundred and sixty-
nine Jesuits (the number given by Rist) there are fifty
non-Germans, evidence is afforded of the innate Jesuit
untruthfulness, which extols fifty foreigners in a book
entitled, “ The German Jesuits,” etc.

Rist’s book throws at least indirect light on the
“ patriotic ” conduct of the “ German ” Jesuits in 1S66.
Whilst the “ German ” Jesuits were giving free rein to
their hate of Prussia in their school at Feldkirch, as I
have shown in Chapter VI., the same “ German ” Jesuits
were simultaneously acting as pro-Prussians in the mili-
tary hospitals at the seat of war. This is double-faced
“ patriotism.”

I do not wish to disparage the nursing activity of the
individual “ German ” Jesuit ; protest is only raised
against the fact that it is placed to the account of the
Order’s patriotism. Constitutionally, the Jesuit must
know no patriotism, must be absolutely international.
Let then the truth be honoured by the Jesuits, and let
them not adorn themselves with a word which is not to
be found in even the most exhaustive index in the volu-
minous works on the constitutions and rules of the Order.

The heart of the Society of Jesus (if we may speak
of a heart at all) was with Austria in 1866 and with

* Freiburg, 1904.

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

38

France in 1870-71, and, therefore, pretty far removed
from “ German patriotism.” This is self-evident, because
of the strong Jesuit antagonism for everything non-
Catholic ; and my own experiences at Feldkirch and in
my home also prove it.

The brutal egotism of the Order, which has already
frequently been emphasised, but cannot be emphasised
enough, and which manifests itself in everything within
the Order, is the main root of Jesuit cosmopolitanism,
and also the poison which corrodes patriotism. It is in
the interests of the Order to be international and un-
patriotic — away, therefore, with the noblest emotions of
the natural human heart ! But an occasional pretence
of such feelings is also in the interests of the Order.

I have already brought forward numerous proofs of
this egotism, as manifested in the work of education and
the bringing up of the young. Since, however, this side
of Jesuit egotism is particularly pernicious because it
extends into the world outside Jesuitism, I will supple-
ment the particulars by further historical facts.

Prantl, in his History of the Ludwig- Maximilian
University, gives a clear statement, based on original
documents, of the egotistical intrigues of the Order at
the Ingolstadt University during a period of more than
two centuries (1550-1773).

The University continually complains, he asserts, “ of
the greed of the Jesuits in seizing upon everything ( cwpido
occwpandi omnia).” “ Ambition and self-interest came
into play always and everywhere when Jesuits were con-
cerned.” “ The Jesuits did everything in their power to
calumniate the professors and vice-chancellor at Munich.”
“ They placed themselves on the same level as the lord
of the land, as if he were a mere party to an agreement.”
“ It is of no use even to set precise limits, because this
vermin creeps through all the same (isti caniculi semper

Criticism of the Inner Constitution 39

subrepunt ) .” “ They want to share the artistic faculty

like the lion in /Esop’s fable.” The Jesuits are “ a rest-
less and domineering race ( inquietum et imperiosum homi-
num genus) which seeks to subjugate everything.” That
zealous Catholic, Professor Giphanius, declares (in a
report of 1597) : “ For some time the Jesuits alone had
the ear of the Government and were alone honoured by
it, whilst the remainder, no matter how able, were set
aside with contempt ; whoever desired promotion had to
apply not to the Duke, but to the Jesuits, and whoever
failed to submit to them not only attained nothing, but
had reason to fear that he would be dismissed.” On
April 8th, 1609, the University directed its attacks against
the attempt of the Jesuits to seize upon the entire juris-
diction over the students : “ It seemed to be the pre-
meditated plan of the Jesuits to overthrow ( evertendi ) the
University and to seize upon the entire control at the
expense of the temporal professors.” From a memorial
“ of maturer students ” to the Senate of the University
on March 28th, 1610 : “ The Jesuits tried to ruin the legal
faculty, the Jesuit Heiss openly compared the law-students
to swine and oxen, and the Jesuit Mayrhofer, in a sermon,
called the students of jurisprudence ‘ sons of corruption
and of the devil.’ ” “ They forbade that confession should
be made to the Franciscans, and lately some students were
expelled because they had attended vespers and a pro-
cession at the Franciscan Church.” At the end of May,
1610, the University reported to Duke William V. : “ The
Jesuit craving for rule aims at arrangements such as are
to be found in the Jesuit colleges at Dillingen, Graz and
Munich ; the Jesuit professors only came to the sittings
of the Senate when their own interests were in question,
and at divisions they supported a particular regulation
more in the interests of the Order than in those of the
University ; they immediately followed up every trivial

40

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

concession by seeking for another ; every remark by the
Rector of the University was rejected with the words :
‘ It is contrary to the Constitutions of the Order, and our
Provincial has already decided about it.’ ” In a memorial
of February, 1611, the University complained of “the
omnipotence of the Jesuits.” “ They [the University] had
positive proof that the Jesuits only sought to obtain
advantage and glory for themselves.” “As at Cologne,
Louvain, Paris, and Padua, the Jesuits also try to obtain
the mastery at Ingolstadt over every one.” “ Ingolstadt
would no longer be an independent University, but a
Jesuit College.”*

As at Ingolstadt, Jesuit egotism also caused dis-
turbance at the University of Freiburg in Breisgau.

As the Jesuits had the bigoted Archduke Ferdinand,
afterwards second Emperor of that name, entirely in their
hands, it was easy for them to induce him first of all to
found a Jesuit College at Freiburg. From this vantage
ground the Order would proceed to take possession of the
University. The Archduke issued a letter to the University
on August 9th, 1577, stating : “ That he purposed to
found in his Austrian borderlands [Breisgau] a college of
the Society of Jesus which might be incorporated with
the University as had been done at Ingolstadt.” The Uni-
versity set itself in opposition and replied : “ . . . Least
of all would the Society of Jesus benefit the discipline,
because the youths educated by it are particularly in-
clined to pride, disobedience and malice, either because
they are set free from control too early, or because they
are not taught how to use their liberty at the Universities
wisely and profitably. Finally, as to the manner in
which the fathers of the Society dealt with collegiate
affairs, Ingolstadt had supplied proof that peace and

* Prantl, Geschichle der Ludwig- Maximilians- Universitai (Munich, 1S72), I., 230,
248, 260, 252, 253, 258, 351, 356, 357 et seg., 361, 363, 370.

Criticism of the Inner Constitution 41

concord amongst the professors had been disturbed by
their admission.” The Jesuits achieved their end, how-
ever, and after a hard struggle even obtained the supremacy
in the Academic Senate.*

The Order also provided egotistically for its material
welfare at Freiburg, and this at a time when the country
was suffering under the distress of the Thirty Years’ War.

The Jesuits caused 16 measures of wine, 20 bushels
of wheat, 22 bushels of rye, 6 bushels of barley and
4 bushels of oats to be supplied yearly for their two
members of the Senate. They even planned to get the
whole income of the University into their hands, “ because
they could administer it better.” In this case, the pro-
fessorial salaries would be paid by the Order. The plan
was unsuccessful. How much its revival was dreaded,
however, is shown by a remark in the University records
of 1665 : “ Attendite Posteri ; requiescit enim hie ipsorum
(Jesuitorum) spiritus, sed non dormitabit ” [Beware, 0
posterity ! The spirit of the Jesuits is reposing, but it
will not sleep] f They refused to share in the payment
of the war tax imposed on the University. A memorandum
of March 10th, 1640, from the University records, reports :
“ Although a third portion of the contribution is not
unjustly assigned to the Jesuits, they have paid none of
this up to now, and the University has made everything
good. And yet they have enough to reimburse them-
selves by considerable properties and other means.”{
The amount of means they possessed is shown by the
fact that, in 1745, 8,000 florins, which they had once
advanced, were returned to them by the University. They
stipulated that this should be paid in French or Spanish
gold. 1 1

* Schreiber, Geschichte der Albert-Ludwigs-U nivcrsitdt zu Freiburg i. B,
(Freiburg, 1868), II., 309, 413.

t Ibid., II., 309, 413.

J Ibid., II., 428.

|| Ibid., II., 449.

42

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

It is not surprising that at Freiburg also their egotism
should have led them away from German and national
interests ; but the fact is so noteworthy in its singularity
that it merits special emphasis.

In the Peace of Nimwegen (February 5th, 1679),
Freiburg was yielded up to France and remained French
till the Peace of Ryswick (October 30th, 1697). The
University had taken refuge at Constance, where it was
to be re-established. Louis XIV. wished, however, to
have a University in his new acquisition, and the Jesuits
willingly offered to help. Although the question as to
whether the University was to be an adpertinens of the
town of Freiburg had been answered in the negative at
the Diet of Ratisbon, and it was recognised as a corpus
mdependens, the Jesuits opposed themselves to this
secretly and openly, even in the sermons in their Marian
Congregations, and sent their adroit negotiator, Father
Migazzi, to Versailles, where he was graciously received
at court and abundantly provided with money. These
fathers, therefore, to a great extent attained the estab-
lishment, besides the German University at Constance, of
a French one ( studium gallicum) at Freiburg, and the
privileges from the former and their establishments in
Alsace-Lorraine and Breisgau were transferred to the
latter, whereby the Jesuits not only predominated entirely
over the secular professors, but enjoyed other prerogatives
besides, which they never had and never could have had
formerly.*

The state of affairs at the Vienna University presented
the same disagreeable picture after the Jesuits set foot
there and gradually assumed the power ; endless conflict
and wrangling on all sides ensued, f

* Ibid., II., 434, from the records of the Syndic of the University, Dr. Rosen-
zweig.

f Cf. Kink f.Geschichte der lcaiserlichen Universitdt Wien (Vienna, 1854), I., 304
et seq, } 323 et seq.

Criticism of the Inner Constitution 43

_ The Jesuits were only brought within bounds by hard
struggles when, owing to Maria Theresa’s confidence in
him, the Dutchman, Gerhard van Swieten, was called to
Vienna in 1745 (first as physician-in-ordinary, then as
professor of medicine, prefect of the Court Library and
superintendent of the censors.)*

I cannot enter into van Swieten’s interesting struggle
with the Jesuits, which lasted for years, or into all his
remarks about them. It will be sufficient to put before
the reader some passages from a memorial to Maria
Theresa :

“ The Society makes religion its excuse to . . .
ensure to itself a profit at the expense of the
printer and the bookseller. ... I have most ample

evidence to prove that the real aim of the Society

is to enrich itself, and that religion is only a

cloak under which it abuses the piety of Your
Majesty and your glorious ancestors. ... I hope
that the examples I have brought forward are suffi-
cient to demonstrate the cleverness of the Society

by means of which they blandly rob ‘ externals ’ and
enrich c our own people.’ . . . The Society tries to

* Van Swieten is one of the men best hated and most slandered by the Jesuits,
for no other reason than that he was their convinced opponent. A very little
reflection must, however, make even the Jesuits realise how baseless their
calumnies are, precisely in van Swieten’s case. For if Maria Theresa, who, both
as woman and Empress, was overwhelmed with praise by the Jesuits, and whose
confessors were Jesuits, valued van Swieten more and more as time went on, and
trusted him implicitly, it is very plain that he deserved her confidence. It is
inconsistent to praise Maria Theresa and calumniate van Swieten ; and
hatred of the latter can afford the only explanation. Van Swieten was
also a good Catholic, whatever the Jesuits might say. He had even been
forced to resign his position as teacher in Holland owing to his religion,
and, therefore, his opinion cannot be put aside offhand with the favourite
saying, “ Antagonistic towards Catholicism.” Even a man like Kink, who
was so favourably inclined towards the Jesuit Order, and, therefore, did not
cherish kindly feelings towards van Swieten, acknowledges with regard to
his religious attitude : ** He exercised practical Christianity and also observed

the rules of Catholic worship.”

44

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

appropriate the profits of c the externals 5 for the benefit
of 4 our people . 5 55 *

Jesuit egotism is shown most unpleasantly in the form
of envy and lust for power, by its attitude towards other
religious Orders and the secular clergy.

In the first place, Kink gives a full account of the
Jesuit feud against the Dominicans in Vienna :

“ The pious fathers of the most humble Society of Jesus ( minima
societas Jexu, a term of extreme lowliness which the Jesuits loved
to apply to their Order, and under which immeasurable arrogance
is concealed) did not rest until an imperial decree of December 2nd,
1656, “ excluded the Dominicans for ever from the office of dean,

. . . and refused their opponents [the Dominicans] the personal
qualification for academic offices. 5 ’!

Kink goes on to relate :

4 4 The Franciscans, Carmelites, Augustinians and Benedictines in
Vienna gave instruction in Latin and theology in their monasteries
in exactly the same way as the Universities, but without the
privileges in the matter of conferring degrees, which belonged to
the latter alone. In particular, they permitted their scholars to
hold public disputations, and that in their churches. This arrange-
ment dated back to the times when the monastic schools were
almost the only educational institutions. For this reason, the
Vienna University, which had found this custom in existence at
its foundation, had never raised a protest against it. However,
in 1626, consequently three years after the Jesuits had taken over
the philosophical and theological faculty, the Jesuit Order passed
a resolution at the consistory to the effect that these public debates
were forbidden to the above-named religious orders. The religious
orders, however, found a supporter in the papal legatus a latere ,

* Memorandum of December 24th, 1769 ; complete French original text in
Fournier, Gerhard van Swieten als Zensor : SitzungsbericJUe der philosophisch-
historischen Klasse der kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Vol. 24, p. 337
et seq. Vienna, 1877.

t lb id., I., 383 et seq .

Criticism of the Inner Constitution 45

Caraffa, who, on October 20th, directed the University not to
interfere any more with persons and places which were exempt
from the academic statutes. In spite of this, the theological faculty
soon afterwards refused the printing licence for their theses dis -
putationis requested by the Franciscans. As a punishment for this
disobedience, the nuncio then commanded that not only were the
theses to be approved, but that, in addition, all doctors of theology
belonging to the Society of Jesus should appear in person at the
debates held by the Franciscans. They obeyed, but appealed to
the Roman See, which, however, upheld the customs of the religious
orders, and in 1627 gave a decision to the same effect as the nuncio:
The Jesuits now succeeded with the aid of temporal power where
they had failed with spiritual. The religious orders were com-
manded to cease holding their debates in public and to omit on
the frontispicium of their printed theses the expression sub praeside .
This command was specially renewed on August 23rd and October
12th, 1725, in the case of the [Benedictine] Scotsmen. 55 *

So far as the secular clergy are concerned, it is a
well-known fact that they decline to have the Jesuits
as permanent colleagues, however willingly they make
use of them as temporary assistants in the cure of
souls.

The Order enters into the keenest competition with
the secular clergy. It attracts congregations, especially
wealthy ones, from the*parish churches f into the churches
of the Order, and tries, where its feet have become firmly
planted, to obtain a mastery over the secular clergy, a
mastery which is very oppressive to the subordinates.
This endeavour emanates from the general spirit of arro-
gance and self-seeking in the Order, which tolerates no
other gods but itself.

The “ ordinary ” priest is of inferior value in the
Jesuit’s eyes ; he requires guidance and supervision. He
can only be properly shaped by the Jesuit Exercises.

* Ibid., I., 415 et seq.

f Cf. the remarks of Cardinal Wiseman quoted on p. 31.

46 Fourteen Years a Jesuit

I have heard Jesuits express this opinion hundreds of
times.

This characteristic of the Jesuit Order is as old as
itself. On this account there is generally secret strife
between Jesuits and the other Orders and the secular
clergy, a strife which is only made public in rare instances.
Both parties try, in the general ecclesiastical interest, to
avoid all din and fury in the warfare.

The “ resolutions of confidence ” which the secular
clergy pass on the Jesuit Order, especially at times of
persecution, do not alter this state of affairs. Such reso-
lutions are only passed in the general ecclesiastical and
hierarchical interest, and are in reality “ an illusive repre-
sentation of spurious facts.” At heart the secular clergy
wishes the Jesuit Order at Jericho.

In a work by the English Catholic priest, Dr. Christopher
Bagshawe, dating from the first century of the Jesuit
Order, we possess a very interesting example of its egotis-
tical attempt to subjugate the secular clergy. A number
of Catholic priests were interned in Elizabeth’s reign in
Wisbeach Castle. They lived on very friendly terms with
one another. The position was changed when some
Jesuits were also interned there. Bagshawe describes
their restless and arrogant activity. It will be sufficient
to quote the title of his book :

“ A true Relation of the Factions begun at Wisbeach
by Fr. Edmunds alias Weston, a Jesuit, 1595, and con-
tinued since by Fr. Whalley alias Garnet, the Provincial
of the Jesuits in England, and by Fr. Parsons in Rome
with their adherents. Against us secular priests, their
brethren and fellow-prisoners, that disliked of novelties
and thought it dishonourable to the ancient ecclesiastical
discipline of the Catholic Church that secular priests
should be governed by Jesuits.”*

* Cf. Taunton, The Jesuits in England, p. 173.

Criticism of the Inner Constitution 47

My experience also confirms this.

One of the private chaplains in my home, Dr. Pings-
mann, afterwards became Canon and Vice-President of
the seminary for Roman Catholic priests at Cologne.
I remained on friendly terms with him even during my
Jesuit period and always visited him when I had to pass
through Cologne. A conversation which we carried on as
to the possible return of the Jesuit Order to Germany is
still very vivid in my mind. On our way back from a
walk, we were standing at the entrance of the college for
Roman Catholic priests, which had previously been a
Jesuit College, when I said jestingly : “ We must get in
there again.” Pingsmann replied, not without vehemence :
“ We do not want you back at all. Your Order has never
yet agreed with us secular priests anywhere.” This
remark, by a man whom I very much esteemed, made a
deep impression on me. I was then in almost complete
ignorance of the spirit and history of my own Order.
Surprised and startled, I communicated this incident to
my Provincial Superior, the Jesuit Ratgeb, and obtained
from him (as he placed special confidence in me at that
time, a point to which I shall refer later) the characteristic
reply :

“ My dear Father, Canon and Vice-President Dr.
Pingsmann, is a very worthy man, but he has nothing
to do with our return. When we return to Germany, the
secular clergy will submit to us, as they have done hitherto,
though very reluctantly, it is true. Our Order is a very
different power from the loosely connected secular clergy.
There may be difficulties also for us in the Catholic camp,
but no lasting resistance.”

The Chancellor of the Paris University, Froment, con-
sequently only states a fact in the history of the Order,
and does not utter a slander, when he expresses his opinion
as to Jesuit egotism :

4 8

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

“ Uniquement occupes de son agrandissement, les J esuites
ne travaillent que pour eux-memes ; leur interet regie seul
leur pretendue charite. Par intime correspondance, qu’Us
ont les uns avec les autres, par la faveur des Grands, dont
ils flattent V ambition, enfin par la prudence des enfants du
siede, dont ils savent faire usage merveilleux, ils trouvent les
moiens d’executer lews projets et de se rendre formidables.”*

This egotism of the Order is not incompatible with
individual Jesuit unselfishness, which not infrequently
rises to heroism, and I am far from denying it. The
individual Jesuit sacrifices himself, with all that he is
and has, to the Order. In his case, at least as a rule, the
surrender of the personal individuality is made without
side or backward glances in his own interest.

Neither do I reproach the Order for possessing the
egotism which every association must have, and must
give practical proof of having, if it is to exist and prosper
at all. But Jesuit egotism extends infinitely further. In
its selfishness it has no consideration for others. Jesuit
egotism is Moloch-egotism — it eats away the existence,
happiness, honour and efficacy of others for its own
aggrandisement.

Thus the characteristics of the Society of Jesus and
the characteristics of Jesus Christ are in the sharpest an-
tithesis conceivable, and the fundamental opposition is
justified — Here is Christ, there is Jesuitism !

* Le Vassor, Histoire du Regne de Louis XIII., I., 1, Cl, quoted by Harenberg,
Pragmatische Oeschichte , I., 350.

CHAPTER XVI

THE CRITICISM CONTINUED : THEORY AND PRACTICE OF

THE VOWS

I have already shown, whilst discussing the Jesuit
“ Scheme of Studies,” that many rules, and indeed just
those which outwardly appear good, are only set down on
paper, that they are not observed, and that really, in
practice, the Order acts in opposition to them. It manages,
however, cleverly to increase its fame by means of these
very unobserved rules.

The same remark applies to the Constitutions of the
Order — fine words and opposite deeds.

The real reason for this characteristic phenomenon lies
in the fundamental Jesuit failing, innate all-pervading
untruthfulness.

The panegyrists of the Order, be they Jesuits or others,
endeavour to conceal the antithesis between its words and
deeds. According to them, the most beautiful harmony
prevails, pious words and pious deeds.

I shall thoroughly destroy the apparent harmony and
cause dissonances to resound on that great instrument
called history, which in trumpet notes will proclaim the
truth about the Jesuit Order to every ear that is willing
to listen.

Let us turn first to the conflict between the theory
and practice of its ascetic discipline, and especially to that
part which constitutes the essence of its discipline — the
vows.

E

49

50

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

THE VOW OF OBEDIENCE

Since the vow of obedience is first and foremost con-
cerned with obedience to the Superiors of the Order, there
is, of course, no antithesis between theory and practice,
so far as this kind of obedience is in question.

But the Order possesses a figure-head in the sphere
of obedience, and this is the professed Jesuit’s vow of
obedience to the Pope. In accordance with this, the
Society of Jesus loves to designate itself as the “ Flower
of the Pope’s bodyguard.” And in general — i.e. so long
as the interests of the Order are not opposed — we see that
Jesuits do act in accordance with their vow of obedience
to the Pope. But where the Pope interferes with Jesuit
egotism, he finds in the Jesuits the bitterest and most
obstinate adversaries, who, far from fulfilling their vows,
do not even render him the ordinary obedience binding
on all Christians. The history of the Order is full of such
fulfilments of vows. I will submit only a few examples,
but they are very striking.

The Jesuit, Thyrsus Gonzalez (afterwards General of
the Order), originally a probabilist, recognised the per-
niciousness of probabilism, and wrote a work against it.
He sent the manuscript in 1673 to Rome to the General
of the Order, Paul Oliva, for approval. The imprimatur
was refused. Gonzalez then applied to Innocent XI., who
had just condemned sixty- five lax ethical principles, very
many of which originated in the Jesuit Order. The Pope
caused Gonzalez’s book to be examined, and the examina-
tion was favourable. An Inquisitorial decree was there-
upon issued on June 26th, 1680 :

“ By order ( injungendum ) of the Pope, the General of
the Order is commanded in no way to permit the fathers
of the Society of Jesus to write in favour of lesser probable
opinions, and to oppose the views of those who maintain

Theory and Practice of the Vows 51

that it is not permissible to follow a less probable opinion
when the opposite opinion has been recognised as probable.
Also, as regards the Universities of the Society of Jesus,
it is the wish of His Holiness that everyone should write
in favour of probabiliorism, and should oppose the opposite
view [probabilism]. The General must command all to
submit to the will of the Pope.”*

The assessor of the Inquisition intimated this decree
to the Jesuit General on July 8th, 1680, and the General
declared he would forthwith obey in all things. The Jesuit
General, Paul Oliva, however, was the very one who did
not obey. As the Jesuit Gagna reports, Oliva, on August
1st, 1680, drew up a circular which was intended for the
whole Order and embodied the Pope’s command — it is
said to be in the archives of the Order — but it was not
forwarded.f For otherwise Gonzalez, as Professor of Dog-
matics ( Cathedraticus primarius) at the University of Sala-
manca, must have known about it. But it was only in
1693 that Gonzalez heard of the decree issued in 1680,
and he himself says, in a written petition to Clement XI.,
dated 1702, that the Inquisitorial decree and Innocent
XI.’s command were not conveyed to the Order.

This disobedience in such a weighty matter is especially
important, because it was effected with exceptional cunning.
The General of the Order, Paul Oliva, laid the circular
drawn up by himself before the Inquisitional Cardinals,!
in order,] | as Pattuzzi remarks, to make the Inquisition
believe in his prompt obedience. Once the belief had been
brought into existence, there was no longer any necessity,
from the Jesuit point of view, for that which had
originated it, namely, the despatch of the circular.

Oliva did indeed issue a circular on August 10th, 1680,

* Pietro Ballerini, Eiposta alia Lettera dd P . Paolo Segneri , 1734, p. 349.

t Gagna, S.J., Leltere d' Eugenio, p. 611. J Ibid.

|| Letter e 2, 595 ; 6, 218.

52

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

which dealt with ethical questions, but no mention wa3
made in it of the decree of the Inquisition of June 26th,
1680.* This circular too was doubtless intended to
deceive the Pope. It made it possible to answer in the
affirmative the question as to whether a decree regarding
disputes on ethical questions had been despatched.

The Archbishop of Vienna, Cardinal Migazzi, in a
memorial to the Empress Maria Theresa, dated August 14th,
1761, writes :

“ The French bishops only condemned the scandalous
book of the notorious [Jesuit] Berruyer after the Papal
See had most severely condemned it, and the Pope now
reigning [Clement XIII.] had confirmed and repeated the
decision made by his most blessed predecessor. In spite
of this, the Patres Societatis have recently sent this work
to Naples to be published, and in Vienna have even
recommended it to young people and various other persons
who are guided by them.” The Archbishop goes on to
speak of Jesuit manuals which have been condemned
in high places and others recommended in their stead.
“ But affairs have taken quite a different course since,
at Innsbrug and Olmiitz, the professors of the Society
have continued to use the prohibited books for reading
aloud.”|

An occurrence related by Gindely should be quoted
here, even though it only concerns the egotistical dis-
obedience of the Jesuit Order to a cardinal and nuncio :

“ The Jesuits had taken advantage of their position
with the Emperor [Ferdinand II.] to set aside the historic
right of the Bishop of Prague to the Chancellorship, and
request the surrender of the University to their sole
authority, and had provisionally attained their object.

* Friedrich, Beitrdge zur Geschichte des Jesuitenordens , p. 85.

f Helfert, Griindung der osterreichischen Volksschule , p. 280 (1) ; complete text
in Kink, I., 417 et seq .

Theory and Practice of the Vows 53

The Emperor commanded that the adherents of the
Bohemian denomination were to leave the University build-
ings and surrender the same, as well as all other possessions,
to the direction of the Jesuits from henceforth. Not only
were the Protestants indignant at this measure, but also
the Catholics, and especially the clergy, felt uneasy
at the thought that the Jesuits were to be sole masters
at the University. The Archbishop . . . indeed pro-
tested and also communicated his protest to the nuncio,
but without avail. His successor, Cardinal von Harrach
[a pupil of the Jesuits], who would not agree to the retrench-
ment of his rights, resolutely continued the battle. The
struggle between him and the Jesuits, who would not at
any cost let themselves be driven from their position,
lasted for over twenty years. It led, on the Cardinal’s
side, to the bitterest accusations and attacks against the
Jesuits, but for all that he was not able to displace them.”*

These facts, distinctive as they are for the Jesuit
obedience to the Pope, are as nothing compared with the
disobedience of the Order, extending over many years and
accompanied by open opposition and shameful deeds of
violence, in connection with the Malabar and Chinese rites.

In 1702, Clement XI. sent the Patriarch of Antioch,
Charles Tournon, as Papal Legate to India and China,
in order to settle, with the Pope’s authority and to the
disadvantage of the Jesuits, the disputes stirred up by
the Jesuits about the rites which the Christianised Indians
and Chinese had brought over from heathenism and which
were upheld by the Jesuits and condemned by all other
missionaries. Intense hate of the Legate on the part of
the Jesuit Order was the result. To increase his author-
ity, Tournon was made a Cardinal by Clement XI. in
1707. But Tournon’s elevation in rank seemed to heighten
the fury of the Order, which believed that its standing

* Geschichle des drcissigjahrigen Krieges , IV., 547 et seq .

54

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

and power in India and China had been compromised by
the Papal decrees. The Jesuits placed themselves, in
opposition to the Papacy which condemned them, under
the protection of the pagan Emperor of China and invoked
his aid against the Papal Legate and against all the
remaining members of the Order who obeyed the Pope.
On July 24th, 1708, they secured the publication of an
imperial edict, which banished all missionaries who,
following the command of the Pope, condemned the rites,
thus actually making the Jesuits sole owners of the
Chinese missions.* Cardinal Tournon himself was brought
by force, at the instigation of the Jesuits, in 1707 to Macao,
and died in prison there on June 8th, 1710.

It can no longer reasonably be doubted that the
Jesuits attempted to poison the Cardinal during his
imprisonment, which had been brought about by them-
selves. The report ( Rdazione ) of an eye-witness, Canon
John Mar cell Angelita, who as Promotor was also the
official escort of the Cardinal, with reference to the
event,f bears so much the stamp of spontaneity and
truth that it must be believed, the more so as the work,
in which the report is contained, is in other respects, too,
a mine of authentic and rare documents. Amongst them
a letter of the Lazarist priest, Antonio Appiani (one of
Cardinal Tournon’s companions), dated Canton, November
22nd, 1728, deserves special attention.

“For the same reason [because, at the order of the
Pope, he condemned the Chinese and pagan rites approved
by the Jesuits] the venerable Cardinal Tournon died
in imprisonment, wounded to the heart ( accuorato ) For
the members of the above-named Order [the Jesuits],
because they would not obey the decrees of His Holiness

* Wording of the edict in Memorie storiche della Legazione e morte delV Eminentiss
Cardinale di Tournon , Venezia , VII., 142 el seq.

f Reprinted in Memorie storiche , I., 205-232.

Theory and Practice of the Vows 55

the Pope, Clement XI., placed themselves under the pro-
tection of the pagan Emperor [of China], and he furthered
the stubbornness of the members of the above-named
Order by ill-treating the real Catholics who were obedient
to the Holy See.”*

Whether the expression “ wounded to the heart ” is
an allusion to poisoning, and thus a confirmation of the
report, is a question we cannot decide. In any case,
Appiani’s letter is an eloquent proof of the fact that,
even after eighteen years, the remembrance of the intrigues
of the Jesuits against the Papal Cardinal Legate, Tournon,
was still alive, and caused him to utter sharp words
against the “ bodyguard of the Pope.”

A very important corroboration of the poisoning is to
be found in the fact that the Missionary Congregation of
the Lazarists, one of the most distinguished missionary
societies of the Catholic Church, in a work officially
published by it,f has dealt with the report as an authentic
document, and refers to the poisoning in most positive
terms :

“ Mais four en revenir a notre douloureuse histoire, il
est certain, tres certain, indubitable, que la maladie et la
niort du cardinal Tournon ont etc occasionnees far le foison,
que lui ont fait donner les J esuites .” |

J. Friedrich, therefore, on the basis of the report and
the corroboration of the Memoires, states the poisoning as
a positive fact,§ and H. Reusch, certainly a very careful
investigator, speaks of it as “probable.”!

The Memoires also accept as authentic the whole of
the remaining contents of the Memorie storiche, which are

* Memorie storiche ., I,, 354. /

f Memoires de la Congregation de la Mission . Paris, 18G5.

j Ibid., IV., 309.

§ Zur Verteidigung meines Tagebuches (JNordlingen, 1872), p. 10 ei seq., and
Ahhandlungen der III. Kl. der K. Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, XHI.,
2, Abtl, 95. J] Index , II. (1), 772.

56

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

as unfavourable as possible to the Jesuit Order; indeed,
they even give in an introduction some information
which places the trustworthiness of the Memorie beyond
doubt :

“ Ces faits [the documents incriminating the Jesuits]
ont ete imprimes et publies en particulier par le Cardinal
Passionei dans son ouvrage : ‘ Memorie storiche delV Eminen-
tissimo Monsignore Cardinale di Tournon ,’ qui renjerme
une partie des documents authentiques conserves dans les
archives du Vatican ou de la Propagande et dont la parjoite
conformite nous a ete attestee par le Prejet des archives du
Vatican, le Pere Theiner, Oratorien .”*

What the Jesuits Comely and Duhrf bring forward
against the Memoir es of the Lazarists consists partly of
untenable calumnies and partly of barren abuse of
Friedrich and all those who doubt the innocence of the
Jesuits. The audacious attempt entirely to explain away
the evidence of the Memoires is especially hollow. The
Jesuits Comely and Duhr triumphantly relate how the
General Superior of the Missionary Congregation explained
in April, 1872, that the volumes in question of the Memoires
(I Y. -VIII.) were “ contumaciously ” published without the
contents having been previously examined by him.

I will for once — by way of exception ! — believe the
two Jesuits’ statement that such an explanation exists.
But does it then contain even a single word as to the
inaccuracy of the contents of the volume published
“ contumaciously ” ? It says nothing at all. It is possible
to write even the truth “ contumaciously.” It would have
been the business of the General Superior to express an
opinion as to the truth or falsehood of the contents,
especially concerning the poisoning. His silence about
this is a fresh endorsement of the truth of the “ report.”

* Index, IV., 126.

t Stimmen aus Maria-Laach , III., 279 et seq ., and Jesuitenfabeln (4), 776-786.

Theory and Practice of the Vows 57

It also seems strange that the General Superior of the
same Congregation which published the Memoires should
have waited seven whole years after the issue of the work
before declaring against the genuineness of the docu-
ments contained in them. Moreover, the greatest stress
must be laid on the fact that the Memoires de la Congre-
gation de la Mission, which were so incriminating to the
Jesuits, are an official publication of the Lazarist Congre-
gation.* This is evident from the entire character of the
work, which is based throughout on letters and documents
from the archives of the Order, and is proved to demonstra-
tion by the addition to the title-page of every volume,
“ a la maison principale de la Congregation de la Mission.
Rue de Sevres 95.” The prefaces also of the separate
volumes clearly emphasise the official character of the
Memoires — e.g., the preface to the second volume :

“ Ce jut pour maintenir dans la Compagnie V esprit
apostolique de nos Peres, que nous eumes la pensee de
publier des rares fragments de leur correspondance que nous
possedons encore, ainsi que les biographies de deux ou trois
d’entr’eux echappees au desastre qui ft disparaitre la plus
grande partie de nos archives .”

A further proof of their official character and credi-
bility is afforded by the Histoire generate de la Societe des
Missions titrangeres (also an official publication of the
Societe) which was published in 1894. For the Histoire
repeatedly refers to the Memoires and even to the part
(Vol. IV.) which is unfavourable to the Jesuit Order, and
which contains the report as to Tournon’s poisoning.
And yet the circular of the Superior of the Missionary
Congregation (Lazarist), mentioned by the Jesuits Comely
and Duhr — if it exists at all — must haVe been known to
the author of the Histoire. So, in his opinion, the circular
does not dispute the contents of the Memoires, but is

* Congregation de la Mission, founded by St. Vincent de Paul.

58

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

directed solely against the opportuneness of their publica-
tion. Weighty evidence is afforded by the fact that the
General Superior of the Missionary Society, Delpech, con-
gratulates “ his dear colleague,” Launay, in a letter pre-
fixed to the first volume, on his work, especially on his
“ exactitude ” and on the “ documents authentiques ” on
which it is based. Amongst these documents authentiques
are included precisely the documents contained in the
Memorie and in the Memoires which are most incriminat-
ing to the Jesuits.

No, the Memorie storiche and the Memoires are unas-
sailable sources, but sources from which issue countless
proofs of insubordination, and of the open insurrection of
the Jesuits against the Pope and his ambassadors (for
they persisted in disobeying Tournon’s successor, the
Papal Legate Mezzafalce, as they had disobeyed him),
and also of Jesuit cunning, falseness, passion for calumnia-
tion, and malice attaining the limits of crime. Hence it
is clear why “ the Jesuits so loyally attached to the Pope,”
who, as their own official historiographer, Cordara — not,
I admit, in a work intended for publication — expresses
himself, “ look down with contempt upon all the other
religious associations,” do their very best, according to
their ’unpublished axiom, “ The end sanctifies the means,”
to choke up a source which is so tainted from their point
of view. For this reason they have attempted to buy up
the Memoires, so that copies have become extremely rare.
In Germany, for example, there are only two copies, not
even complete ones, both of which are at Munich ; one
(only three out of the eight volumes) at the Court and
State Library, and the second (only one volume) at the
University Library. The method, which I have referred
to already,* of secretly making away with incriminating
works must have been employed also in this case.

* Chap. V., p. 189.

Theory and Practice of the Vows 59

I give, in addition, some documents printed in the
Memorie and in the Memoires, as an illustration of the
“ absolute submissiveness to the Pope ” of the Jesuit
Order.

A letter of Tournon, dated Macao, December 10th,
1707, to the Priest, Fatinelli, in Rome : The Legate com-
plains in the bitterest words that the Jesuits hindered his
-communication by writing with Rome in every possible
way, while, on the other hand, they themselves sent
numerous letters and messengers to Europe to bias public
opinion against him. The Jesuits sought the protection
of the pagan Emperor against the decisions of the Pope,
conveyed by Tournon, as to the illegality of the heathen
rites, without incurring any of the canonical penalties
with which such disobedience is threatened. They had
brought about the banishment of the apostolic vicars,
Maigrot and Mezzafalce, and of all the missionaries who
were not on their side in the question of the Chinese rites.
Their opposition to the Papal decree was unprecedented
throughout Christendom.* A letter by Tournon, dated
Nanking, January 9th, 1707, to the Dominican Croquer :
The Jesuits had brought about the ruin of the Chinese
Mission through their lies ( menzogne ) and intrigues, f
Tournon’s remarks regarding the above-mentioned imperial
edict of banishment which the Jesuits had procured against
all missionaries who had obeyed the command of the Pope
— scathing condemnation of the attitude of the Jesuits.J
Bull of Clement XI., dated March 15th, whereby the
Bishop of Macao, who, at the Jesuits’ instigation, had
opposed the Cardinal Legate, was excommunicated. The
noteworthy fact is reported in the Bull that the Cardinal
Legate felt himself obliged to place the college seminary
and church of the Jesuits in Macao under an interdict.

* Memorie, I., 1C9 et seq. f Ibid., VII,, 118, et seq.

i Ibid., VII,, 200 et seq .

6o

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

The Pope not only does not condemn the measure, but,
by connecting the Jesuits with the persecutions to which
his Legate is exposed, he clearly refers to them as the
instigators.* A letter by Tournon, dated December 27th,
1707, to Cardinal Paolucci, states that : The Jesuits were
extremely antagonistic to him ; since 1705 they had
tried to prejudice the Emperor of China against him ;
Grimaldi, one of the most influential Jesuits, was double-
faced ; the Jesuits incited the Christians against him ;
they calumniated his companion, the Lazarist priest,
Appiani.f A report by Tournon to the Cardinal-Prefect
of the Propaganda says that : The hate of the Jesuits
against him as the apostolic Yisitator extended so far
that they caused snares to be laid for him at confession.^
The missionary priest, Sala, reports that Cardinal Tournon
received information through the Bishop of Pekin that
the Superior of the Portuguese Jesuits, Pereyra, did
everything possible at Court ( faisait tons les efforts 'possibles)
to have him driven from China. § From “remarks’' by
the Secretary of the Propaganda : || The Lazarist priest.

* Memorie , VII., 67 et seq. f Mimoires, 4, 230 et seq ; 254 et seq .

J Ibid., 4, 260.

§ Ibid., 4, 296. The report also contains a remarkable ^passage with reference
to the Jesuit mathematician, Adam Schall, a monk of Cologne, who became
famous at the Chinese Court. “ Ce Pere Schall voulant jouir plus a Vaise des liberality
et javeurs de ce Prince [the grandfather of the Emperor at the time of this report],
s'etait separe des autres J esuites et de Vobeissancedeses superieurs, avait pris femme
et s' etait retire dans cette maison privee. Apres avoir joui des faveurs imperiales il
termina tristement sa vie , laissant deux enfants d cette qu'il avait prise pour femme "
(Ibid., 4, 296). What Duhr (J esuitenfabeln (4), 240-244) brings forward against
the communication does not sound very convincing. For a confession by Schall
regarding other things, a letter of one of his fellow-members of the Order and a
audatory remark by the sinologist, Remusat, with reference to Schall’s mathe-
matical merit, cannot surely serve as counter-evidence. Schall’s portrait has been
placed in a window of Cologne Cathedral. But what should the building committee
of the Cathedral know of the real history of the Jesuit Order 7

ft In 1726,’ the Pope, Benedict XIII., had charged the then Secretary of the
Propaganda (apparently Dominico Passionei, who later became Cardinal) to
annotate a memorial presented to Innocent XIII. by the Jesuits. These comment*

Theory and Practice of the Vows 61

Appiani, Tournon’s faithful companion, is, for that very
reason, persecuted and calumniated by the Jesuits in
every possible way ; a pamphlet composed and circulated
by the Jesuit Superior at Pekin, Antonius Thomas, is
especially noteworthy in this connection : “A memorial
of the unquenchable hate and the rare talent [for calumny]
of the Pekin Jesuits. ... I will reveal the true cause
of the monstrous violation of Christian love and justice
[with reference to Appiani]. He has always been the
faithful interpreter of the Patriarch [the Papal Legate
Tournon], For this reason he is no longer to see the
light. . . . The invariable axiom of this ‘ good com-
munity ’ [the Jesuits] is to do all that is possible,
be it just or unjust, to conceal the stains on its
honour.”*

A letter of Cardinal Tournon to Cardinal Paolucci, of
October 27th, 1707 : The whole letter is a denunciation
of the Jesuits, who even went so far as to declare openly
that he, the Cardinal Legate of the Pope, possessed no
jurisdiction. Two or three Jesuits, “ who only look with
pain upon the rebellion (la rebellion) against him of their
Superiors and their fellow-members of the Order,” were
imprisoned and punished by the remaining Jesuits ; “ they
suffer imprisonment, sequestration, insult and a thousand
hardships.” The Jesuits, especially those in Pekin, were
the originators of the opposition against the Papal decree,
proclaimed by him, discountenancing the Chinese rites
in the Christian churches. “ Even if the Jesuits were
able, at first, to hide their opposition to the Papal decree

are contained in a manuscript comprising twelve volumes from the bequest of
the Cardinal-Prefect of the Propaganda at that time, Corsini, Raccolta di scritture
e summari diver si sopra la causa dei P. P. Gesuiti intorno alle Missioni della Cina
nella Congregazione di Propaganda . From this voluminous and authentic collec-
tion of documents (at present in the Corsini Library at Rome), the Memoires have
reprinted the extracts of chief interest. (Cf. Memoires , 4, 130 et seq.)

* Memoires , 4, 408 et seq.

62 Fourteen Years a Jesuit

under the deceitful pretence that the existence of the
entire mission in China was at stake, they cannot now any
longer conceal the .fact that their outrage [on the Papal
authority] is premeditated and deliberate. For they
publish new books full of teachings which the Holy See
has condemned, and the contents of which are more
detestable than any published before the condemnation.
As a specimen, I am sending you a book translated from
Chinese into Latin, which Father Barelli and other Jesuits
triumphantly circulate in the capital of Cheh-chiang and
show to the mandarins. Through this poisonous seed they
destroy the Gospel harvest more than ever, they dishonour
the Papal authority in the eyes of the Christians and cause
frightful scandal, above all, amongst the heathen, -who
know what is taking place. . . . Was it necessary to
employ such detestable means of provocation in order
to maintain their [the Jesuits] damnable manner oi
proclaiming the Divine Law ? ”

The Cardinal then openly accuses the Jesuits of being,
the authors of his imprisonment in Macao ; he accuses the
Jesuit, Emanuel Ozorio, of having intercepted his [the
Legate’s] letters (qui est le principal pecheur de mes lettres),
acting thereby in agreement with the Superior of the
Jesuit Mission, Father Thomas Pereyra ; the Jesuits hated
the secular clergy ; in their letters they designate the
secular clergy as “ vulgar persons ” (populace), an expres-
sion which they had also used in presence of the Emperor.
“ These people [the Jesuits] have no fear of God ; they
have intercepted and opened my letters to Rome as well
as the bulls for the Bishop of Pekin ; they arm the
ecclesiastical and temporal power against me and the
missionaries ; they preach by word and example rebellion
against the Papal jurisdiction; they declare my instruction
to be invalid because I possess no jurisdiction ; they goad
on the soldiers who guard me to deeds of violence against

Theory and Practice of the Vows 63

my person, and advise them to strike me if I should
attempt to leave my house.”*

A circular of the General Superior of the Lazarist
Congregation, Bonnet, dated January 1st, 1711, gives a
description of the cruel persecutions of the Lazarist priest,
Appiani, in China by the Jesuits of that place. “ Et
M. Appiani emprisonne pendant qualre ans dans la maison
des Jesuites, quelles cruautes inouies n’a-t-il pas endurees
de la part de ses impitoydbles geoliers ? Prive de tout
commerce humain, prive meme des consolations religieuses,
il n’eut jamais la permission pendant quatre ans de celebrer
une seule fois la messe ; cruaute dont les paiens chinois
furent eux-memes scandalises .” f

A letter, dated December 10th, 1707, from the Cardinal
Legate, Tournon, to the Papal Nuncio in Lisbon, Conti
(afterwards Pope Innocent XIII.), says : “ After I had
taken the greatest pains to report exactly to His Holiness
concerning the distressing events in the Chinese Mission,
which had been thrown into the greatest excitement
through the violent proceedings of the Jesuits, I now see
that my way is everywhere closed for sending further
despatches to Rome. The Jesuits make use of the Chinese
and Portuguese in Macao, yes, even of the heretical
English and Dutch, to intercept my letters. It is really
astonishing to see how these fathers send their emissaries
in all directions in order to inundate Europe with their
false ideas and reports, whilst I am prevented from sending
even one to give the Pope and the Holy See the necessary
information. . . . After the Jesuits had been informed
last year of the Papal decision, whereby their practice in
relation to the Chinese rites was condemned, they appealed
with shameless audacity to the [pagan] Emperor without
troubling about my prohibition, the ecclesiastical censure
and the Papal displeasure with which I threatened them.

* Memoires , 4, 464 et seq 484, 495 et seq. f Ibid,, 4, 520 et seq .

6 4

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

They caused several imperial decrees to be issued against
Bishop Maigrot, against myself, and, above all, against
the Holy See, so as to oppose them to the Papal decisions
and to prevent their publication.” The Cardinal then
describes how one of his missionary priests, Guetty, was
tortured at the Jesuits’ instigation to compel him to give
evidence against him [the Cardinal], and how the Jesuits
Pereyra and Barros had been present behind a curtain
and directed the procedure.*

A letter by the Cardinal Legate to his brother, dated
December 11th, 1707 : “ I assure you that the Jesuits
have not omitted any calumnies or intrigues, that they
have indeed made use of devilish devices to blacken me
and my actions at the pagan Court. . . . The worst of
it is that it is not the heathen who persecute the mission-
aries and destroy the Mission, but the Jesuits, and they,
indeed, do it with sovereign effrontery. ”f

A report of the Cardinal Legate, dated November 15th,
1707 : He relates how the Jesuit, Porquet, disseminates
the following dogmas in Canton : “ He who asserts that
the souls of the dead rest on the altars of their ancestors
does not sin against religion ; the Pope cannot infallibly
settle the disputes concerning Chinese rites ; the mission-
aries are not bound to obey the commands of the Patriarch
of Antioch [Tournon, the Papal Legate, had this title]
with regard to the Chinese rites ; neither the Pope nor
the Church can infallibly define whether a thing is an
idol.”

When an exhortation to retract proved useless, the
Jesuit, Porquet, was excommunicated by the Legate, but
he took no notice and was supported in this by the
remaining Jesuits. “ Father Britto [a Jesuit who was
canonised in the nineteenth century] told the missionary
priest, Giampe, to his face that they [the Jesuits] did not

* Meinoires, 4, 522 el seq. | Ibid., 4 , 529 el saq.

Theory and Practice of the Vows 65

recognise the Patriarcli either as the legitimate Visitator
or as Papal Legate, and they considered his power of
jurisdiction invalid.”*

Report of the Lazarist priest, Miillener [a German] to
his General Superior, Watel, dated December 30th, 1708 :
At the Jesuits’ instigation, almost all the missionaries who
had submitted to the decision of the Pope ( en fils soumis
de VEqlise) were banished from China.f A report of the
Cardinal Legate, dated 1708, concerning a new imperial
decree of June 24th, 1708 : The decree, which was unfavour-
able to the missionaries obeying the Pope, was published
through the influence of the Jesuits, who take up the
position that they would rather see the Mission destroyed
than that it should be reformed in accordance with the
Papal decrees.J

A peep behind the scenes of the Chinese and Malabar
drama, which led to the death of the Papal Legate,
Tournon, is also afforded by a remark, not intended for
publication, made by the Jesuit Cordara, official histori-
ographer of the Order for thirty-five years. In a most
weighty secret report (to be dealt with more fully later),
addressed to his brother, Cordara states that Innocent XI.
had issued a “ very severe decree (atrox decretum) against
the Jesuits with reference to their behaviour in the Chinese
and Indian Mission, which, if it had been published,
would have been very bad ( male admodum) for the entire
Society.” §

The death of the Pope prevented the publication. His
successor, Benedict XIII., who, as Cordara himself says,
was entirely in the hands of the Jesuits ( societati addictis-
simus) left everything to his favourite, Coscia, bartered

* Memoires, 4, 538 et seq. f Ibid., 4, 549 et seq.

J Ibid., 4, 5G2 et seq., 572.

§ Denkvmrdigkeiten des Jesuiten Cordara zur Geschichte von 1740-1773;
Bollinger, Beitrdge zur politischen, kirchlichen unrt Kultur -Geschichte der sechs letzten
Jahrhunderte (Ratisbon, 1883), 3, 3.

66

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

the important official positions for money, and only
thought of the enrichment of his family,* abstained from
publishing the decree, which reflected disgrace on the
Order.

Submission only followed tardily when Benedict XIV.,
in two bulls quickly succeeding one another (1742 and
1744), reminded the Jesuits, with the greatest severity,
of their duty of obedience.f

I have dwelt a long time on the disputes concerning
the Chinese rites. But there is no stronger proof than
this of the falsity of the Jesuit boast as to the uncondi-
tional submission of the Order to Rome and of the
unscrupulousness with which the Jesuits work against the
Papacy itself when the defence of their interests is in
question. J

Prom the conduct of the Order also at the time of its
suppression by Clement XIV. in 1773, we miss, in spite
of all assertions on the Jesuit side to the contrary, the
absolute submission to the Pope, which has been solemnly
extolled.

In this connection, I can contribute the following
from my own experience :

In 1880 Leo XIII. tried to make peace with Prussia,
and a hostile feeling was thereby aroused against him
in the Jesuit Order. During this time I heard him
attacked most violently by my comrades of the Order.

* Cordara, Ibid., p. 4.

f Bullarium Romanum (Edit. Luxemb., 1748), 16, 230 et seq .

J I have already called attention to the attempts of the Jesuits, Comely and
Duhr, to represent the Tournon case, and the agitations in China connected with
it, as insignificant. Side by side with this misrepresentation must be mentioned
the work of another Jesuit, who imdertook the whitewashing of the subject more
than a century ago, and even to-day is looked upon as a great authority. A History
of the Disputes with reference to the Chinese Rites was published in 1791 at Augsburg.
The author remained anonymous, after the favourite style, but it was soon known
that the Jesuit Pray was the originator. The three volumes form a single spiteful
pamphlet, teeming with calumnies against the very persons who make the best
appearance in the light of history — Tournon, Appiani, Maigrot, etc.

Theory and Practice of the Vows 67

The Jesuits Pachtler and Cathrein were especially reckless
in their speech. For instance, it was asserted that the
jubilee (of the priesthood) of such a Pope, who watched
so badly over the interests of the Church, ought not to
be celebrated. The animosity went so far that I felt
myself compelled to write to the General of the Order,
Anderledy, with reference to the statutory loyalty to the
Pope and to ask him to interpose. Characteristically
enough, I received no answer, and the ostracism of the
Pope continued uninterruptedly. The action of Leo XIII.
in bringing about the close of the KulturJcampf was at
variance with the egotism of the Order, which dreaded
lest a truce between Church and State should compel it
to retire into the background. Hence the rage against
the Pope and the insubordination to the Papal measures.

THE VOW OP CHASTITY

“ What pertains to the vow of chastity requires no
explanation, it being clear how perfectly it should be
observed, namely, by striving to imitate the angelic holi-
ness in the purity both of our mind and body.”*

On this regulation in the Constitutions of the Order,
the Jesuit Genelli makes the “ historic ” remark :

“ As regards chastity, it deserves to be emphasised
. . . that the Society is so immaculate in this respect
that its opponents have never been able to prove any
assertion against it, although the Jesuits, by living in the
world and having intercourse with all kinds of persons,
are exposed to the sharpest scrutiny, and their work leads
them frequently into temptation and danger.”f

It must be freely acknowledged that unchastity has
never tainted the Jesuit Order permanently, and that the

* Constit. VI., 1, 1 ; Summar. n. 23.

t Das Leben dcs heiligen Ignatius von Loyola (Innsbruck, 1848), p. 230.

68

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

unnatural restraint of celibacy does not work so destruc-
tively here as in so many sections of the Roman Catholic
clergy. But it must be stated most distinctly that in this
point also Jesuit theory and Jesuit practice are opposed
to one another, and that the statements of Jesuit writers,
e.g. Genelli, with reference to the “ angelic purity ” of
the Order, are untrue. In that very sphere of activity
which the Order regards above all others as its domain
of glory — the education of the young — the Jesuits have
paid their full tribute to sexual humanity. In Chapter VI.
I have already touched lightly on this subject, but now I
shall deal with it more fully.

Heinrich von Lang, the director of the Bavarian State
Archives, gives the following information from papers of
the Upper German Province of the Jesuit Order, which
are now lying in the Imperial Archives at Munich — i.e.
reports concerning members of the Order which were sent
from the Superior of the Province to the General of the
Order in Rome.*

In the first place, Lang gives a complete account of
the vicious conduct of the Jesuit, Jacob Marell, towards
pupils of the Jesuit establishment at Augsburg. Lang
produces original letters of the Jesuits Banholzer, Erhart,
and Osterpeutter, dated July 3rd, September 22nd, and
December 26th, 1698, which they, in their capacity of
confessors, consultors and rectors, addressed from Augs-
burg to the Provincial Superior, Martin Muller, and in
which the abominable details of the doings of their fellow-
Jesuit, Marell, are report ed.t Lang also prints signed
statements by three pupils, Count Oettingen and the two
Counts Fugger, who were most frequently misused by the
Jesuit Marell.

From p. 26 onwards, in an extract, Lang gives thirty-
six “ informations ” regarding the immoral behaviour of

* Jacobi Marelli, S.J . , amores. Munich, 1815. f Ibid., pp. 1-22.

Theory and Practice of the Vows c 9

as many Jesuits. The following are examples : Informa-
tion against Father Werner Ehinger for disgraceful
intercourse with a Baron of Ratisbon ; against Father
Haas at Freiburg for illicit intercourse with two youths ;
against Father Adam Herler, of Constance, who corrupted
seventeen youths ; against Father Franz Schlegl, of Munich,
for assaults on seven boys ; against Father Ferdinand, of
Augsburg, for misusing a servant girl ; against Father
Michael Baumgartner, who, whilst he was sub-regent at
Dillingen, entered into an entanglement with a woman of
seventy and seduced two girls, one of whom then said,
“ For shame, what kind of priests are these ? ” and so on,
in one continuous catalogue of similar abominations.

In considering this list of grave offences we must bear
in mind that it deals with only one Province of the Order,
the Upper German, that the numerous cases happened in
the short time between 1650-1723, and that the editor,
Lang, Director of the State Archives, declares that he
could easily quote “ hundreds and hundreds ” of such
“ informations ” from the manuscript material at his dis-
posal in the Munich archives. Ivluckhohn, who thoroughly
searched through the Jesuit papers at Munich in 1874,
and gave reports on them before the Royal Bavarian
Academy of Science, also confirms the data supplied by
Lang.*

Paul Hoffiius, who in 1596 was appointed by General
Acquaviva Visitator for the Upper German Province of
the Order, and who was one of the most important Jesuits
of that time, as the result of his visitation wrote in his
Memorial intended for the Jesuit College at Munich :

“ It is to be regretted that so many beneficial precautionary
measures [for the preservation of chastity] are not always observed,
or are observed very carelessly. Feasting ( commessaliones ) and

* For Kluckliolm’s comment, see I., p. 207.

7 o

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

frequent visits to single females at their residences take place
without necessity. Rendezvous are given in the church for long
conversations with women, and there are scandalously long con-
fessions ( confessiones scanddose frolixae) of women, even of those
who frequently confess. Confessions of sick women in their houses
are heard without [as the rule prescribes] the presence of a com-
panion who can see the confessor and penitent. Frequently, yes,
very frequently, intimacy prevails between two persons [confessor
and his female penitent] without any trace of strict repression on
the confessor’s part. I fear that sweet and agreeable words are
exchanged, which are tinged with carnal lust and carnal feelings.
Unpleasant occurrences, which lead to apostasy and to expulsions
from the Society, teach us what great evils are caused by such
transgressions in the case of confessors. Must there not be a
strange aberration of intellect and heart when confessors in a free
and unembarrassed manner, and without fear of shame, dare to
pass many hours joking with women before the criticising eyes of
the world, as if they themselves and their penitents were not in
any danger from such unrestricted intercourse ? It is known and
has also reached the ears of the princes [referring to the two
dukes of Bavaria] that confessors from amongst our Order have
become entangled through such Satanic examples of vice, and
have apostatised or been expelled from the Society as evil
nuisances.”*

This Memorial, to which I shall again refer, affords the
more food for thought because it is a secret report and
was drawn up only forty-six years after the founding of
the Jesuit Order. Consequently, even in its first youth,
— i.e. at a time in which zeal and the active practice of
virtue should still have prevailed — the Order suffered from
grave improprieties.

In these cases it is very important to notice that
although, formally and directly, the offences of individuals
are in question, nevertheless the Order as such is impli-

* Printed by Reusch, Beitrdge zur Geschichte des Jesuitenordens : Zeitschrift
filr Kirchengeschichte , 1S94, XV., 2, 262 et seq.

Theory and Practice of the Vows 71

cated because, in these and in other instances, it failed to
punish the culprits adequately.

There is no mention of punishment in the above-
mentioned “ information.” In one of the worst cases,
that of the Jesuit Theoderich Beck, the Provincial Superior
even recommends that clemency should be shown, “ because
the offences were not publicly known.” He acted here
quite in accordance with the ordinance already quoted,
issued by General Acquaviva in 1595, that immoral actions
should not be punished by dismissal when they had led
to no open scandal.* How exactly the advice was followed
is shown further by the following facts :

A Jesuit, W. K. (he is careful not to mention his name),
reported, under date 1st December, 163- (he also does not
mention the year), from Home to the Jesuit Forer at
Dillingen that the Jesuit Mena, “ an exceptionally clever
man, who is sought out by all as an oracle,” made a
woman, who was his penitent, believe that she might live
with him legitimately. He subsequently denounced him-
self and “ died in the Society of Jesus ” before the
close of the lawsuit which followed. It is related in the
same letter of another Jesuit, Azevedo, that “ he had
only been detected {nihil aliud fecisse deprehensus) observ-
ing or touching that belonging to a woman which one
ought bashfully to keep away from.” He also “ died in
the Society of Jesus.”+

THE VOW OF POVERTY

The scope of the vow of poverty (also of the special
vow of poverty of the professed Jesuits) is explained by
the following passages in the Constitutions :

“ Whoever wishes to live in the Society must be con-
vinced that food, drink, clothing and bedding should be

* See Chapter VI.

t Bollinger -Keuscli, M oralstre Hi gkei ten, L, 5S7 ; II., 305.

72

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

of such a kind as appertains to poverty, and that the
worst things which are to be found in the house are
assigned to him to produce greater self-denial and spiritual
development ; also in order that a certain equality and
a common social measure should be attained. As those
who established the Society were specially tried by such
poverty and a greater want of bodily necessaries, so those
also who follow them must endeavour, by the grace of
God, to equal and excel them. . . . Poverty is to be
loved as the strong wall of the Order, and, with the help
of Divine grace, is to be maintained in its purity as far
as possible. All must love poverty as a mother and
endure its effects in fitting season, according to a measure
of holy discretion ; nothing is to be used as an individual
possession, and they must also be ready to beg from door
to door when obedience or necessity requires this.”*

And with reference to the gratuitous performance of
the work of the Order which is connected with poverty,
the Constitutions say :

“ All who are under obedience to the Society should
remember that they ought to give gratuitously what they
have gratuitously received, neither demanding nor receiv-
ing pay, or alms, by which masses, or confessions, or
sermons, or lessons, or visitations, or any other duty of
all those which the Society can render according to our
Institute, may appear to be remunerated. . . . Also
they must not, although others are allowed to do so,
accept any pay or any alms for masses, sermons, lessons,
or administration of sacraments, or for any other pious
work which the Society may carry out in accordance
with its Constitutions, as recompense for such services,
from any other person than from God (for whose service
alone they are to do everything).”!

* Exam . gen., IV., 26 ; Summar . 23, 24.

f Constit . VI., 2, 7 ; Examen generate, I., 3 ; Can. 1 , Congreg. 5 ; Summar . 27.

Theory and Practice of the Vows 73

Only on one point, which is to be discussed minutely
further on — the interference of the Jesuit Order in politics
— is the opposition between Jesuit theory and Jesuit
practice so sharp as in the case of poverty. We
may [say at once that Jesuit poverty is communistic
wealth.

Apart from actual business associations, there is
scarcely any non-religious society which strives so intently
and with such considerable success after possessions and
riches as the Society of Jesus, a name which, in just this
connection, is a cruel mockery. But amongst the religious
bodies, the so-called spiritual Orders, the Jesuit Order
occupies a supreme and exceptional position through its
“ poverty.”

I will give some personal recollections first of all.

No doubt I have felt, as the Constitutions of the Order
express it, “ the effects of poverty.” The already described
dormitory and living arrangements during my novitiate,
which continued throughout the scholasticate, afforded
full opportunities for the practical experience of poverty.
Bedding and clothing were, if not exactly mean in the
strictest sense of the word, far from any suggestion of
opulence. A palliasse which was frequently very hard,
coarse bed-linen, a small blanket and a narrow and short
bedstead formed my nightly couch for years. The cloth-
ing was outwardly, it is true, generally clean. As regards,
however, the cleanliness underneath, e.g. the cleanliness
of the undergarments, there was none, since, for example,
one and the same pair of trousers was worn next to the
skin for years, and shirt and stockings, in spite of per-
spiration and in spite of scanty washing and rare baths,
were only changed once a week. Thus I also experienced
the uncleanliness which is frequently, but not necessarily,
connected with poverty.

But two points must be noted in the case of these

74

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

“ effects of poverty,” and they are not the only ones, as I
shall show. In the first place, it was a poverty brought
about by force of circumstances. The German Province
of the Order was obliged, while established abroad (in
Holland and England) after its expulsion from Germany,
to cut its cloak according to its cloth ; it oould not imme-
diately have everything in good order. And in the second
place, this effect of poverty, to which still others were
added according to necessity (threadbare or torn clothing)
are the tests imposed on the individual to prove his con-
tempt for the world, his obedience, his constancy, etc.
They are not phenomena which develop from the attitude
and from the spirit of the Order. Thus even the meagre
“ effects of poverty,” regarded from religious and ascetic
points of view as characteristic of the Order, are still
further reduced. Hence I have a perfect right to dis-
regard these things in describing the poverty which I
personally endured.

In other respects I have learnt to know the poverty
of the Jesuit Order as easy living, based on wealth, and
even luxury, combined with a spirit of intense eagerness
for money and gain.

It is obvious that an Order which clothes and feeds
thousands, and in many instances lodges them in magni-
ficent and spacious buildings, must be rich, very rich.
The revenues, from which the enormous sums for main-
taining the members, houses and churches of the Order
are derived, point to a capital of many millions. I saw
this clearly from the beginning. But I came to see other
things clearly as well.

The material foundation of the Order, safeguarded by
an enormous fortune of millions, was not the only, not
even the most marked, feature of opposition to its theo-
retically ascetic and religious foundation — i.e. to Jesus
Christ’s vow of poverty. We find it in the daily life and

Theory and Practice of the Vows 75

in the habits of the Order of the Society of Jesus in certain
circumstances.

The daily fare at dinner and supper is very good and
very abundant, incomparably better than that of the
secular priests and even most comfortably situated and
well-to-do families of the middle class. The Jesuit Order
knows no trace of poverty in eating and drinking.

The “ poor ” Jesuit daily eats a dinner consisting of
soup and two meat dishes, with suitable additions and
stewed fruit, and a supper consisting of a meat dish or
other hot food, and he drinks good beer with this. On
festival days, according to their importance, several dishes,
amounting to five or six, are served, and wine is supplied
besides the beer. In the English Jesuit houses (Ditton
Hall, Stonyhurst, London, Liverpool and Manchester) I
have enjoyed meals which must be characterised as very
well cooked, sumptuous dinners,* at which neither oysters
and champagne, nor pastry, poultry and game, nor even
the after-dinner cigarette with coffee and liqueurs were
lacking.

Was the meal of which Christ and His company par-
took before His passion and death, the picture of which
frequently adorns the refectories of the Society of Jesus,
of the same nature ?

The “ magister meals ” constitute a special kind of
feast. Every three months, or even more frequently, the
Jesuits appointed as magistri in the different colleges have
special festivities with a meal at which things are done
in great style. From a purely human point of view, I am
quite capable of appreciating such recreation, spiced with

* Such feasts are called Duplicia ; they are divided, according to their import-
ance, into Duplicia sccundae , prirnae and primissimae ( sic /) classis — a division
which, it is important to notice, has been copied from the Liturgy, which classes
the feasts of the Church under festa simplicia and duplicia , and these again under
duplicia sccundae. and primae classis. The designation duplex primissimae classis
for specially sumptuous meals is Jesuit Latin, or rather Jesuit dog-Latin.

7 6

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

pleasures of the table, in the course of a hard and monot-
onous professional life. But the purely human point of
view is by no means that which is accepted by the Society
of Jesus ; it takes to itself very emphatically the ideal
of Christly perfection and asceticism, and such feastings
are out of place for the wearers of the soutane and biretta.

A true Jesuit peculiarity may be added. It is that the
good living, expressing itself in luxurious meals and feast-
ing, is most carefully kept from the laity. In their eyes
the Jesuit appears as the poor, mortified member of an
Order which is very much in want of support and alms.
The liberality of the unsuspecting public would receive
its deathblow if it got wind of such things.

An event during my stay at the Jesuit college in
Holland, Blyenbeck, where I studied philosophy as a
scholastic from 1881-1883, shows to what serio-comic
situations such secret proceedings frequently lead.

One fine summer afternoon my uncle, Baron Felix von
Loe (Centre Deputy and founder of the Catholic National
Union), came over the moor from his estate at Terporten,
situated on the other side of the neighbouring Prussian
border, as he frequently did, to visit his friend, the Jesuit
Joseph Schneider (author of an “ official ” work on Indul-
gences), who was stationed in Rome as Consultor of the
Congregation of Indulgences, but was spending his holidays
at Blyenbeck. It was just the time for a “ magister meal,”
and Father Schneider as a distinguished guest took part
in it. A great dilemma occurred ! I was called to the
Rector, and requested to entertain my uncle in the mean-
time and explain to him that Father Schneider could not
be spared just then “ owing to urgent business.” About
an hour later, Father Schneider appeared with a face
rubicund from eating and drinking, and in a very cheerful
frame of mind. He repeated the excuse about important
business. I suffered torture, partly owing to the untruth

Theory and Practice of the Vows 77

with which we had regaled my uncle, and partly because
I was afraid that Father Schneider’s evident cheerfulness
might cause the “ urgent business ” to appear in a some-
what curious light.

From this may be deduced the value of the con-
stantly repeated pitiful complaints made by the Order in
newspaper articles and elsewhere with reference to the
“ bread of exile ” which it is compelled to eat.

The country-houses of the Order, officially named
“ villas,” are peculiarly characteristic of Jesuit poverty.
The Order seeks to acquire country-houses, frequently at
great expense, in the neighbourhood of its colleges, where
every Thursday the inmates of the colleges, fathers and
scholastics, may be recuperated by good air, good food
and all kinds of active games. This is certainly an excel-
lent arrangement from the point of view of health and
the care of the body. It may reasonably be doubted,
from the knowledge revealed to us in the Gospels of the
Christly spirit of poverty, whether it is in accordance with
the spirit of poverty of a Society of Jesus. Notwith-
standing the exile in which the German Province of the
Order lived in Holland and England, the wealth of the
Order was sufficient for the expensive purchase and
support of such villas. Thus, the novitiate house at
Exaeten had its villa at Oosen on the banks of the Maas,
and the college at Wynandsrade had its villa at Aalbeck.

On journeys, the “poor” Jesuit travels second class.
I was accustomed to travel third class as long as I believed
ip, the Jesuit Order. When I went with other comrades,
I found it rather difficult to persuade them to use the
lower class.

The Jesuit father (not the brother) has his own spacious
room, not luxuriously but comfortably furnished, with
bed, writing-table, standing-desk, chairs, prie-dieu, book-
case and stove.

78

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

Consequently it is not to be wondered at — and this is
also an effect of Jesuit poverty — that when Jesuits, brought
up in such comfort, become through exterior events the
possessors of a large income they incline towards prodi-
gality. For example, the Jesuit Cienfuegos, who was
made Cardinal, “ made an enormous display,” as his
fellow-Jesuit, Cordara, the historiographer of the Order,
tells us. This “ poor ” member of the Order wasted over
70,000 gold florins yearly in dissipation as Imperial ambas-
sador at Madrid and holder of the rich archbishopric of
Monreale.*

It is a fair question then : “ Where does poverty come
in when the exterior life of the Jesuit is so comfort-
ably, even luxuriously appointed ? ” And, further, “ Are
there not many amongst the Jesuits who are struck by
the antithesis of the Constitutions of the Order and the
actual life, and who, as a result of these thoughts, doubt
whether they are really in the Society of Jesus, that Jesus
who entered the world in exceeding poverty, passed through
it in exceeding poverty, and left it in exceeding poverty?”
Of course, there are many whose spirit of idealism and
aversion from the world takes offence at the “ poor ”
things offered for their use and enjoyment by the Jesuit
Order. I belonged to this number. I frequently ex-
pressed my trouble and doubts to my Superior, especi-
ally during the novitiate. I received the stereotyped
reply :

“ Our poverty does not consist in privation, but in our
aloofness in the midst of possessions ; also especially in
the fact that we do not call anything our own amongst
the objects with which we are surrounded and which we
use. Every pencil, every piece of paper, every book,
every pen and every sheet of note-paper, our food, the
rooms and the clothes which we use, have to be asked for;

* Cordara, S. J., Denkwiirdigkeiten ; Dollinger, Beitrdge , 3, 3.

Theory and Practice of the Vows 79

we are possessors, or masters, of nothing. Hence we are
poor.”

A sentence uttered by my Novice -Master, afterwards
my Provincial, the Jesuit Mauritius Meschler, also throws
interesting light on this poverty. When I once, at the
Ann ual Statement of Conscience, expressed my misgiv-
ings as to the sumptuous feasts, he said :

“ But, dear brother, are only the wicked to enjoy the
good things of this world ? Has not God also created
them for the righteous ? ”

I was not then quick enough at repartee to answer
him with the saying of Christ, who certainly also belonged
to the “ righteous ” :

“ The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have
nests ; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his
head.”

It does not strike anyone, who believes in the authority
and piety of the expositors, that such explanations are
humbug and devoid of the Evangelical spirit ; indeed,
they gradually lull the ascetic and religious conscience to
sleep. The individual considers that he and the Order
are poor, whilst he lives a very comfortable life on the
interest of the Order’s millions and enjoys in a duly
“ detached ” manner the good things of this world.

I repeat that Jesuit poverty is in reality communistic
wealth, not Evangelical poverty.

I have also had experience in various ways of the
famed gratuitousness with which the Jesuit carries out
his spiritual work (sermons, hearing of confessions, giving
of exercises, and saying mass).

During my third probationary year, the tertiate, which
I passed at Portico in England (near the manufacturing
town of St. Helens), we tertiaries were sent on Sundays
into the neighbouring parishes to help the priests, at their
request, in preaching, hearing confessions and saying mass.

8o

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

The “ gratuitousness ” of such assistance comes very
forcibly to light. Our rector and tertiate instructor, the
Jesuit Oswald, carefully selected from amongst the requests
submitted those which promised to be most lucrative.
He openly stated that he preferred to decline absolutely
requests which did not promise, besides the allowance for
travelling, at least one pound sterling !

This instance of the application of the principle is the
more noteworthy because it belonged to the tertiate period,
i.e. the highest stage of the Jesuit training, and because
the very man who was appointed by the Order to instruct
us in the Constitutions of the Order and initiate us into
its spirit proclaimed this principle with reference to
“ gratuitous ” money-making.

The Order charges high fees for Exercises, popular
missions, festival sermons and masses for souls. It prefers
to give Exercises to rich and noble people, because the
donations, too, are rich and noble. When I gave Exercises
in 1889 to a number of noble ladies at Munster, I received
500 marks (£25) for my exertions, which only lasted three
days. The Procurator of the Province, the Jesuit Caduff,
accepted the money with pleasure, and remarked face-
tiously that I seemed able to give profitable Exercises.
I never brought back less than 300 marks (£15) from the
castle of Count D.-V., in Westphalia, where I often went
to preach, hear confessions and say mass. At the death
of my father, my mother gave from two to three thousand
marks (£100-£150) to the Order for saying masses for
the dead. I have already stated how, in all probability,
the Order also received a considerable portion of my
mother’s fortune through the agency of the Jesuit
Behrens.

Such and similar occurrences might be multiplied a
thousandfold, and an idea can be obtained through them
of the productive source of revenue for the Order

Theory and Practice of the Vows 81

which springs from the gratuitousness of its spiritual
aids.

So much regarding Jesuit poverty from the limited
history of my personal experiences. I will now deal with
the larger history of the Order’s poverty.

Here also stress must be laid on the fact that the
defection from the rules drawn up in the Constitutions is
observable even in the early youth of the Order. The
Jesuit primitine spirit us, the first fruits of the spirit, are
degenerate already, and the high-sounding, ascetic theory
of the Order is in sharp antithesis to them.

In the already mentioned secret report of the Upper
German Province of the Order, by the Visitator, Paul
Hoffaus, appointed by General Acquaviva, we find, under
date 1596 :

“ We have swerved aside, we have fallen away violently, indeed,
from the first form of poverty. We are not content with necessary
things, but desire that all shall be comfortable, plentiful, diverse,
profuse, rare, select, elegant, splendid, gilded, precious and luxu-
rious. I can only think with shame and pain of how many thousand
florins have been expended here [in Munich] in latter years for
the maintenance and the embellishment of the college, as if we
were not poor members of an Order, but courtiers and spend-
thrifts. Woe to those who have brought about and devised this
damnable and accursed expenditure to the corruption of our
religious poverty. This is the more to be regretted because the
corruption has already become a habit which can no longer be
exterminated unless the axe is placed at the root. There is not
a trace left of the poverty of our fathers. Everything is done in
grand style.”*

It is praiseworthy that the officials in the Order raised
their voices in warning. But this did not help matters.
The evil spread. And when the whole is surveyed, when
we observe the continually increasing gigantic riches of

* Reprinted in Reusch, Beitragc „ p. 262.

G

82

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

the Order and see innumerable examples of its remarkable
commercial aptitude for money-making, the not unjusti-
fiable doubt arises : “ Axe not the warning voices of

officials only raised proforma, ut aliquid fecisse videantur ? ”
Be that as it may, the historical life and behaviour of the
Order gives the lie to its theoretical warnings.

As the pseudo-mysticism of the Jesuit Order is an
inheritance from its founder, Ignatius Loyola, so its
pseudo -poverty and its notable acquisitiveness are charac-
teristics handed down from the founder.

Ignatius Loyola instructed the Jesuit Laynez, appointed
by himself confessor to Duke Cosimo de Medici, who after-
wards played an important part at the Council of Trent,
and became Ignatius’s immediate successor in the general-
ship of the Order, that “ he was to ‘ insinuate ’ [this was
the expression used by Ignatius] to the Duke’s wife, who
was to be confined shortly, that she should act in the
same manner as the Queen of Portugal had acted before
her confinement, namely, make a settlement of 500 gold
florins on the Jesuit College.*

These 1,000 gold florins obtained from two princesses
during childbed travail have themselves, as it were, become
reproductive — they have produced a million future gene-
rations. The “ insinuation ” of the founder of the Order
has remained a model for all later “ insinuations,” at the
death-bed, in confessionals, etc., and thus the Order has
heaped up possessions on possessions.

K. von Lang points outf that the Upper German
Province of the Jesuit Order received in the years 1620-
1700 alone through “ insinuations,” 800,000 florins.
Amongst these are single sums of 15,000, 32,000, 56,000,
92,000 and 117,000 florins. In 1718 a member of the

* Druffel, Ignatius von Loyola an dcr romischen Kurie (Munich, 1879), p. 18
it seq.

f Geschichte der Jesuiten in Bayern , 1819, p. 57.

Theory and Practice of the Vows 83

Peutinger family bequeathed 100,000 florins to the Jesuit
College at Ellwangen. From about 1700 onwards, the
donations in the Upper German Province were only noted
down in the secret books. The size of the sums — which
were frequently gigantic for that period — was to remain
concealed.* * * § The yearly fixed revenue of the Upper
German Province, which consisted of 583 persons, amounted
in 1656 to 185,950 florins, according to von Lang’sf
minutely verified documents. To this should be added
many thousands through gifts, donations, fees for masses,
etc.

It was especially Duke William V. of Bavaria who laid
the foundation for the wealth of the Upper German
Jesuits. He endowed the Jesuit College in Munich with a
yearly income of 2,675 florins, and to this were added the
tithes from Ainling and Edenhausen to the amount of
3,000 florins, and the monastery of Ebersberg, with all its
revenues and landed property. |

He met their endeavours to get the most popular
places of pilgrimages into their hands by building them
a college at Altotting. He presented them, moreover, with
the abbeys of Biburg and Monchsmiinster, and contrived,
in spite of the opposition of the district, and against Papal
decrees, that the Jesuits connected with the foundations
should become members of the Bavarian prelacy, and
should receive a seat and vote in the Diets. §

The predilection of this duke for the Jesuit Order was
so boundless that there was a general complaint that the
avarice of the Jesuits would eventually devour the whole
of Bavaria.

William’s example was imitated. His princely neigh-

* Lang, Ibid., p. 58. f Ibid., p. 158 et seq.

t Sugenheim, Baierns Kirchen und V olkszustande im 16. Jahrh. (Giessen, 1842),

p. 317 (2).

§ F. Stieve, Briefe und Akten zur Geschichte des 30 jahrigen Kricges, IV., 414.

8 4

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

bour, the Archduke Leopold, Prince Bishop of Passau,
a boy of fourteen, endowed the Jesuit College at this
place with 30,000 florins.

Thus it is explicable that on the suppression of the
Jesuit Order in 1773 the Upper German Province pos-
sessed a gigantic landed property which was distributed
as follows :

To the college at Munich belonged : the monastery of
Bbersberg with the priory of Erding, Aham, the domain
of Pfaffenhausen with Tondorf, Eugenbach, Hornbach,
Holzhausen, Wolfshausen and Rannerzbach ; to the
college in Ingolstadt : Monchsmiinster with fifty-eight
farms, Biburg with Leitenbach and Rozenhausen of ninety-
one farms, the estate of Randeck and Essing, the manors
of Prunn, Stockau, Oberhaunstadt, Oberdolling with Hell-
mansperg ; to the college at Landsberg : the manors of
Vogach, Pestanagger, Winkel and Zangenhausen ; to the
college at Amberg : the Abbey of Kastell together with
the manors of Engenreut, Hofdorf, Heymaden, Garstorf,
Gebersdorf ; to the college at Ratisbon : the monastery
of St. Paul, the manors of Gieselshausen, the tithes and
dues of Kalmiinz, Lengenfeld and Holzheim ; to the
college at Straubing : the manor of Schierling ; to the
college at Landshut : the estate of Niederding ; to the
college at Burghausen : the tithes of Markel and Seibels-
dorf ; to the college at Feldkirch (Vorarlberg) : the tithes
of Frastanz and the pasturage of Streichenfeld ; to the
college at Neuburg : the monasteries of Berg, Neuburg,
and Echenbrunn ; to the college at Augsburg : the domain
of Eitenhofen, the manors of Kissingen and Mergethau
with the laundry at Lechhausen ; to the theological
seminary at Dillingen : Lustenau ; to the college at
Eichstatt : Wittenfeld and Landershofen ; to the college
at Bamberg : the estates of Sambach, Winden, Stetbach,
Leimershof, Hohengiissbach, Knetzgau, Merkendorf, Sand-

Theory and Practice of the Vows 85

hof and the vineyard of Ziegelang. The Imperial Com-
mission found assets of more than three millions in the
college at Ingolstadt.*

When the Austrian State officially estimated the
wealth of the Order directly after its suppression, it
amounted to 15,415,220 guldens, for Bohemia, Moravia,
Silesia and the remaining German-Austrian hereditary
lands. But this does not seem to have been nearly all.
For the President of the Imperial Exchequer reports,
under date of August 16th, 1782, that more than 120,000
guldens of “ Jesuit gold ” had been discovered at Genoa,
and more than eighteen millions were supposed to be
lodged in the Order’s name in Holland, four millions of
which belonged to Austria. The President even learnt
the names of the banks at Frankfort which had negotiated
the payment of the interest. But the further levy arranged
by the Bethmannf firm led to no results. |

The following facts from the same period throw the
Jesuit wealth into bold relief :

The Bohemian and Austrian Chancery Court reports,
under date of April 28th, 1781, that of the outstanding
claims of the Jesuits on private individuals, 3,214,000
guldens have already been collected, 2,674,939 guldens
were converted into ready money, and, in addition to this,
381,654 guldens earnest money would be collected.

The Emperor (Joseph II.) considered it “ unseemly ”
that the State as an assignee of the Jesuits should have
private debtors, and privately advised Prince Schwarzen-
berg, who was placed in sad difficulties through the notice
to redeem this outstanding debt, to sell one of his estates

* From the documents quoted by Lang, Geschichtc der Jesuiten in Bayern ,
p. 205 et seq.

t The fifth German Chancellor, von Bethmann-Hollweg, is descended from
a member of this banking firm.

| Hock-Biedermann, Der osterreickiscke Staatsrat , 1700-1848 (Vienna, 1879),
pp. 67, 444.

86

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

in the German Empire so that he might pay the proceeds
into the Austrian Government Credit-bank and thus
liquidate the debt contracted with the Jesuits.*

On May 25th, 1647, John Palafox, Bishop of Los
Angeles, wrote to Pope Innocent X. :f

* Hock-Biedermann, ibid., p. 521.

f The evidence of Bishop Palafox (who died in 1659 when Bishop of Osma,
in Spain) is especially unfavourable, and is consequently contested by the Jesuits
with all manner of culuninies. Palafox lived and died in the odour of sanctity,
so that his beatification was instituted and almost completed. Therefore the
Jesuits, fighting as is their wont by means of falsifications and misrepresentations,
have tried to discredit his letter directed to the Pope, from which the above quota-
tion has been taken. But the authenticity of the letter is guaranteed, apart from
other proofs, by a decree of the Congregation of Rites, dated December 16th, 1760,
in which, amongst the writings of Palafox, these two letters are also mentioned,
and it is said of them, as of the remaining writings : “ They contain nothiug

against religion and good morals, nor do they contain any new, strange doctrine
opposed to the general belief and custom of the Church.” The Congregation
announces at the same time that, after the examination of his writings, the beati-
fication of Bishop Palafox could be continued ( Decret rendu dans la cause dc Vltqlise
d’Osma, p. 30. Rome: De VImprimerie de la Chambre Apostolique, 1760. In a
collection belonging to the Court and State Library in Munich : Jes. 832). This
official document is of the greatest importance also in connection with the contents
of the letters. For the Congregation of Rites could not possibly declare that the
letters were “ not opposed to good morals ” if they had not become convinced
after minute examination that they contained nothing slanderous and untrue.
When, therefore, Duhr ( Jesuitenfabeln , p. 640 et seq.), who, moreover, carefully
keeps this important decree secret, asserts most positively : “ A number of his
[Bishop Palafox ’s] assertions are in disagreement with known facts and are
accordingly shown to be untruths,” he makes an audacious attempt to deceive,
which is not improved by the fact that Duhr refers to “ remarks ” (animadversions, s)
by the Promotor Fidei in the proceedings in regard to Bishop Palafox’s beatification.
For it is the business of the Promotor Fidei to raise difficulties from all available
quarters against a beatification, and that is why he is also called the advocatus
diaboli , the devil’s advocate. Moreover, this quotation by Duhr requires to be
explained. As I could not find the remarks of the advocatus diaboli at any German
library, I begged the Intelligence Bureau for German Libraries in Berlin to ask
Duhr in which library the remarks could be found. Duhr replied that they were
private property. Thus I am deprived of the possibility of verifying them. And
until Duhr produces the work itself, I must place a note of interrogation after
his quotation. I have already caught Duhr tripping in regard to many of his
quotations, and shall do so again, no doubt. The accuracy of the contents of
the letter is, moreover, supported by the fact that, on account of the remonstrance
of the Jesuit Order, Rome caused an examination to be carried out, with the
result that Innocent X. decided in three briefs (May 14th, 1648, November 19th,
1652, and May 27th, 1653) in favour of the Cardinal and against the Jesuits.
These briefs were so embarrassing to the Order that it tried to divert their influence

Theory and Practice of the Vows 87

“ Most Holy Father, — I found almost all the wealth, all immov-
ables and all treasures of this Province of America, in the hands
of the Jesuits, who still possess them. Two of their colleges have
30,000 sheep, without counting the small flocks ; and whilst almost
all the cathedral churches and all the Orders together have hardly
three sugar-refineries, the Society alone has six of the largest.
One of these refineries is valued at more than half a million thalers,
and this single Province of the Jesuits, which, however, only
consists of ten colleges, possesses, as I have just said, six of these
refineries, each one of which brings in 100,000 thalers yearly.
Besides this, they have various corn-fields of enormous size; Also
they have silver mines, and if they continue to increase their power

in a truly Jesuitical way. It smuggled into the bullarium (Lyons edition of 1655,
4 vols.), directly after the briefs, a document ( Processus et finis causae Angelo -
politanae) of which the essential part is as follows : “ Decisions in favour of the
Fathers of the Society [of Jesus] from the accompanying brief.” The ruse was
discovered, however, and the Congregation of the Index censured this volume
of the bullarium by means of a decree of August 3rd, 1656, “ until it was cleansed
from the additions ” ( donee expurgetur ab adjectis). In two further decrees (July 27th,
1657, and June 10th, 1658), the resolutions interpolated by the Jesuits were
emphatically designated as such “ additions.” (Reusch, Index II., 485, 495.)

A second Jesuit trick must also be reported in the Palafox matter. When,
as has already been mentioned, Bishop Palafox’s beatification was proposed, the
Jesuits vehemently opposed it. The proceedings continued, however, in the usual
slow fashion. Then, in 1765-1770, there appeared pseudonymous and anonymous
writings, most probably by Jesuits, which designated as suspect the works declared
by the Congregation of Rites to be blameless in regard to dogma and morals.
The nuisance increased so much that the Congregation of the Index was obliged
to put an end to it by means of a decree, dated September 10th, 1771. At the
same time, it again confirmed, at the Pope’s command, the earlier decrees in
favour of the orthodoxy of Palafox’s works and enjoined silence on the Promotor
Fidei (advocatus diaboli), {ibid., 495 et seq.)

Nothing is to be found of all these important facts in the “ historical ” state,
ment by the Jesuit Dulir. He brings forward, as has already been mentioned, an
unverifiable and unfavourable expression of the advocatus diaboli and lays stress
upon the assertion, which has already been proved untrue by Arnauld, that
Palafox has described his letters as written ab irato {ibid., p. 643). The confession,
not, of course, intended fqr publication, which the official historiographer, the
Jesuit Cordara, makes in a report regarding the intrigues of his Order against the
beatification of Palafox is very interesting : “If John Palafox had obtained the
heavenly honours [the canonisation], the letters, which he is supposed to have
addressed to Innocent X., would doubtless have reflected disgrace on the Society
[of Jesus] . . . The Jesuits tried, with good reason, but not perhaps in a very
well-considered manner, to hinder the case of Palafox.” (Denkwiirdigkeiten :
Dollinger, Beitrdge , 3, 29.)

88

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

and wealth as excessively as they have done up to now, the secular
clergy will become their sacristans and the laymen their stewards,
whilst the other Orders will be forced to collect alms at their doors.
All this property and all these considerable revenues, which might
make a sovereign powerful, serve no other purpose than to maintain
ten colleges. ... To this may be added the extraordinary skill
with which they make use of and increase their superabundant
wealth. They maintain public warehouses, cattle fairs, butchers’
stalls and shops. They send a part of their goods by way of the
Philippine Islands to China. They lend out their money for usury
and thus cause the greatest loss and injury to others.”*

One of Palafox’s colleagues, the Bishop of Maragnon,
Gregorio de Almeida, complained, in 1679, that the Jesuits
yearly snatched 40,000 gold ducats from him.f

With reference to the wealth of the Jesuits in China
in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the records
of the Missions Etrangeres of Paris (the oldest Catholic
Missionary Society existing to-day) contain interesting
information :

“ Les J esuites ont trois maisons a Pekin. Chaque
maison a, dans un commerce usuraire, la valeur de cinquante
ou soixante mille taels. Chaque tad vaut au moins quatre
limes de notre monnaie de France. L' inter et de V argent a
la Chine est ordinairement de trente four cent. Les J esuites
pretendent qu’ils n’en prennent que vingt-quatre, ou, ce qui
ne vaut pas mieux, deux pour cent par mois. Le calcul du
profit est facile d faire. Le capital de 60,000 tads pour
chaque maison fait pour les trois maisons ensemble un total
de 720,000 limes et la rente d i environ 80,000 liv. pour
nourrir onze 1 pauvres religieux.’ Mais ce profit rC est
rien compare au profit du commerce de vin, d’horloges et
d’autres industries, avec lesqudles ces Peres amassent des

* Don Juan Palafox , Brief e an Papst Innozenz X. (Frankfort and Leipzig,
1773), pp. 7-9.

, t Evidence given by Friedrich, p. 40.

Theory and Practice of the Vows 89

tresors immenses, qui les rendent beaucoup plus riches dans
les hides que le roi de Portugal .”

As the Lazarists (founded by St. Vincent de Paul)
reprinted these data in the official history of their Con-
gregation,* we have evidence as to the truth of these
facts from two of the most distinguished Catholic Missionary
Societies, who, owing to their activity in China and India,
knew quite well what they were writing about.

In the same place, f the Lazarists also publish the text
of several previously mentioned usurious agreements (con-
trats usuraires) which the Jesuits had concluded, partly
with Christian and partly with heathen Chinese, and
which the Papal Legate in China, Cardinal Tournon, had
declared to be null and void, for the very reason of their
usurious character, threatening ecclesiastical punishments
in case of repetition.

The sums with which the Jesuit Order had to do at
the time of its suppression are shown by a remark of the
Jesuit Cordara, J that Cardinal Marefoschi, who was
nominated by the Pope as Commissioner of Enquiry of
the Jesuit Seminarium Romanum, had discovered that an
item of 500,000 scudi had not been entered at all.

In short, the wealth of the Jesuit Order was and is so
notorious, that Cretineau- Joly, § the fanatical defender of
the Order, in the face of undeniable facts, was obliged to
admit that the wealth of the Jesuit Order in France
amounted to fifty-eight millions in the middle of the
eighteenth century. Neither the property of the missions
in the colonies nor the alms and gifts were included in
this gigantic sum, as he mentions specially. But experience
shows that the alms and gifts amount to a considerable

* Memoircs de la Congregation de la Mission (Paris, 1865), 4, 239.

t ibid., 4, 240 ct seq.

} Denkwurdigkeiten : Bollinger, Beitrdge, 3, 49.

[ § Histoire, de la Compagnie de Jesus (Paris, 1845), 5, 275 (1).

90

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

total yearly, and that the property of the missions was
enormous, so that many millions must be added to the
fifty-eight. The number of French Jesuits who enjoyed
the interest on these millions was then scarcely more
than four thousand.

The fact of the great wealth of the Jesuits is therefore
firmly established. A certain piquancy is added by the
way in which the Order acquires its millions.

It follows two paths to reach this goal. The one is
apparently spiritual and religious, and we encounter on it
the Jesuit as Preacher, Director of Exercises, Confessor
and Spiritual Director. The other path is the usual way
of all business people.

I have already indicated repeatedly the profitableness
of the first way, which bears the official designation
“ gratuitous service ” in spiritual affairs. I can also con-
firm from personal experience how well trodden and
profitable is this road.

In this connection I give a few further characteristic
passages from the history of the Order.

The English Jesuit, Gerard, says of himself:

“ I also gave a retreat to two fine young men who were brothers,
who both came to the resolution of entering the Society. . . .
Before his departure (the elder), among other almsdeeds, he gave
to the Society eleven to twelve thousand florins. My host (Henry
Drury) bestowed nearly one-half of his goods upon the Society.”*

The particulars are supplemented by information
given by the Catholic priest, William Watson, about
1599 - 1600 :

“Father John Jerard (Jesuit) caused Henry Drurie to enter
into this exercise ; and thereby got him to sell the Manor of Lozell
in Suffolke, and other lands to the value of 3,500 pounds, and got

* The Life of Fr. John Gerard (London, 1882), from Taunton, p. 1G2.

Theory and Practice of the Vows 91

all the money himselfe. Two others had the exercise giuen them
at that time by Fr. Jerard : vz. Maister Anthony Rowse and
Edward Walpole, of whom he got 1,000 pounds each. . . . He
dealt so in like manner with Maister lames Linacre, from whom
he drew 400 pounds. He also received from Edward Huddlestones
1,000 under pretence of the said exercise, and he hath drawne
Maister William Wiseman into the said exercise so oft, as he hath
left him now very bare to liue.”

Watson also reports the same of other wealthy
people.*

Abundant details regarding the commercial and busi-
ness road are available, and I will select a few of them :

M. Martin, the manager of the French Trading Company
at Pondicherry, says in his Report :

“ It is an established fact that, next to the Dutch, the Jesuits
carry on the greatest and most successful trade in the East Indies.
They surpass the English and other nations, even the Portuguese,
in this respect. . . . They have carried on this [the trade] to
such an extent that Father Tachard alone owes the Trading
Company [at Pondicherry] more than 160,000 piastres, i.e. y more
than 450,000 French livres. You have been able to observe that
the 58 bales which belong to these fathers, and the smallest of
which was as large again as one of those belonging to the c French ’
Trading Company, were distributed among all the ships of the
squadron [which Louis XIY. had sent to the East Indies under
Admiral du Quene] and were not filled with rosaries or Agnus Dei
or other weapons which would be characteristic of an apostolic
consignment. These are the fine and good wares which they bring
out from Europe to sell in this country, and they import as much
as they can get on the ships at every outward sailing.”]*

The agreement between this information, given by
a merchant holding a trustworthy position, and the

* Decacordon of Ten Quodlibetical Questions , 1602, p. 89 et seq.
f Voyages de Mr. du Quene , III., 15 : in Harenberg, Pragmatische Geschichte
des Ordens der Jesuiten , IX., 543 et seq.

92

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

above-quoted statements of the Lazarist priests and
the missionaries of the Missions Etrangeres is note-
worthy.

We also encounter Jesuit trading on a large scale in
the Island of Martinique.

The commercial transactions of the Jesuit Lavalette
in the Island of Martinique resulted in the bankruptcy of
the large mercantile house of Lioncy and Gouffre at
Marseilles. The General of the Order, Centurione, caused
500,000 livres to be paid as partial compensation to the
mercantile house by the French Provincial of the Order,
the Jesuit de Sacy. But the half -million could not avert
the ruin of Lioncy and Gouffre. The Jesuit de la Marche,
who was sent as Visitator by the Order to Martinique, was
also obliged to acknowledge that Lavalette had been
drawn into illicit commercial transactions. Lavalette’s
liabilities amounted to 2,400,000 livres in 1761. In 1762
the Jesuit Order took up eighty-six of the bills put into
circulation by Lavalette amounting to more than one
million. By way of counterbalancing the Lavalette case,
the Order had recourse to a method which it had frequently
made use of, and which was almost always efficacious in
face of the credulous multitude. It caused a certificate of
good conduct to be drawn up with reference to his spiritual
zeal, his success in the education of the young, his zeal in
preaching, hearing of confessions, etc., by the Bishop of
Marseilles and numerous inhabitants of the town (for the
affair had caused the greatest stir in Marseilles). But such
artifices had no effect on the Parliaments of Aix and Paris,
and in August, 1762, they condemned the Order to pay
one and a half million livres.

The Jesuit Soullier, who tries to cloak Lavalette’s
offence and that of the Order by every possible means,
was obliged to admit these facts.*

* Soullier, S.J., Les Jesuites d Marseille (Marseilles, 1S99), p. 179 et scq.

Theory and Practice of the Vows 93

Adrien Artaut gives an excellent description of Lava-
lette’s cunning methods :

“ En quelques annees il [Lavalette] dota la maison [ des Jesuites ]
de la Martinique d'un fonds dont a estime le revenu annuel , peutetre
avec un 'pen $ exageration, a 280,000 livres. ... La nature de ses
operations n'est pas encore compldement connue , mais il ressort des
discussions qvHelles ont soulevees , que ce religieux arriva d diminuer ,
dans une proportion enorme , le charge qui grevait les retours de la
Martinique sur France. . . . Des que les reeoltes de la Mission
devinrent trap importantes pour trouver acquires sur place , le
P. Lavalette se vit oblige de les envoyer en France oil on les vendait
pour le compte de cette Mission. . . . Le P. Lavalette , combinant
V avantage de la Mission et celui des colons, offrit de delivrer sur ses
correspondants de France, charges de la vente de ses reeoltes, des
traites a valoir sur le net produit de ces reeoltes et de delivrer ces
traites au pair. En d'autres termes : pour mille livres revues d la
Martinique , le P. Lavalette faisait payer mille livres en France ; et
cependant les mille livres regues a la Martinique n'en valaient en
France pas plus de six cent soixante-six . . . . Les traites eiaient
donnees a des echeances ires eloignees. . . . Les produits coloniaux
se vendaient en France a de bons prix, ce qui permettait de perdre
un peu pour realiser tout de suite ce prix. Enfin, les conditions
avantageuses memes auxquelles ces traites etaient offertes, inspirerent
dtiabord de la mefiance aux colons, qui n!en prirent, en premier lieu,
que pour de faibles sommes, et a qui le P. Lavalette ?i’en remit jamais
que pour une partie de la valeur de ses envois. Il resta done toujours
une partie de cette valeur d remettre dvrectement de France et, pour
le retour de cette partie, tres considerable avant que les traites du
P. Lavalette eussent acquis la vogue dont dies jouirent par la suite,
Vintdligent administrates combina une operation toute contraire qu'il
epargnait aux colons: il se fit renvoyer le solde de la valeur de ses
envois en especes qui gagnaient aux lies cinquante pour cent. U en-
semble de ces combinaisons permettait, on le voit, au P. Lavalette de
ddivrer, d peu pres sans perte, des traites au pair de Martinique
sur France.”*

Georges Koux, Un Armateur Marseillais (Paris, 1890), p. 132 et seq.

94

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

Evidently the Jesuit Lavalette would have played a
prominent part in any corn exchange, option business or
banking-house.

It is, of course, untrue that the Superiors of the Order
knew nothing of Lavalette’s affairs, and had not sanctioned
them, as the defenders of the Order, with Duhr at their
head, assert. How could it have been possible, under
the perfect system of control, for the Superiors to know
nothing for years of their subordinate’s important and
extensive affairs which involved France’s largest banking
houses ? No, the Superiors remained silent so long as all
went well and advantageously for the Order. And in this
case silence certainly means consent.

The “ Records of the House ” ( liistoria domus) of the
Jesuit College at Colmar from 1698-1750,* published by
Julien See and M. X. Mossmann in 1872, are especially
instructive, because they afford us interesting glimpses
into the business activity and business ability of the Order.
The glimpses are the more interesting because the Records,
not being intended for publication, contain uncoloured
information. Almost every page gives accounts of pur-
chases, sales, revenues, legacies, gifts, financial law-suits,
etc., etc. The entries connected with material profit or
loss are much fuller than those relating to spiritual and
religious matters. Characteristic “ kindnesses ” towards
other Orders also come to light. I will give a few instances :

From 1720 : “ Cette Residence accepta une petite fonda-
tion, que le Sr Benoist Singler de Turgheim et le Sr Medinger
et sa femme, ses beaupere et belle-mere firent en la ditte
annee au profit de la Residence .” A long lawsuit with the
relatives, who were prejudiced to the Jesuits’ advantage,
was connected with the fondation. In this, an assertion
was made by the plaintiffs’ lawyer : “ que les J esuites
etoient des heredipets, des furets de succession , des fabrica-

f Memoires des R.R.P.P. Jesuiles du College de Colmar . Geneva, Paris, Colmar.

Theory and Practice of the Vows 95

terns des deux actes, dont etait plainte et qu'il etoit temps
d'avertir le public d'etre en garde contre ces sortes de gens."
The lawsuit concluded with an accommodement, que le dit
College (de Colmar) accepta pour le bien de la paix, et depuis
il a vendu du vin provenant de la dite succession, au moyen
de quoy il en a aquite plus de inille ecus de dettes, de maniere
que de sept mille francs deubs par le defunt, il reste encore
quatre mille livres et plus a payer au College de Strasbourg,
tant en capitale qu'en interest."*

From 1727 : It is reported with satisfaction that un
marchand lutherien de Strasbourg was assez simple to rent
for sixty livres yearly an unused cellar belonging to the
Jesuits, which had never brought in anything previously,
and son bail est pour 9 ans et sera avantageux au College .f
The above-mentioned lawsuit regarding the fondation Sr
Benoist Singler reappears, but on a trouve que nous posse-
dons la quantite de vignes, prez, terres labourables, jardins,
contenus dans Vacte de la ditte donation.% Au mois d'Aoust
de cette annee on a loue les deux gros tonneaux qui etoient
vuides, en sorte que le loyer de la cave est presentement de
228 livres. §

From 1729 : (If gain or loss were in question, the
Jesuits made short work of it.) Apres avoir averti la
menagere de Turchheim que nous voulions finir avec elle,
nous avons loue le petit jardin et le pre dont elle jouissoit,
ce qui produit au College une rente de 21 livres. \\ In July
two advantageous purchases of houses were concluded sous
un nom emprunte, and as Monsieur le Statmestre Charlepaur,
un lutherien, also endeavoured to get the houses, the sale
was effected en secret et au plus tot. If The following entry
shows how versed the Jesuits were in money-making:
La Demoiselle Dupuy, surnommee la Flamande, etant
morte en 1727 apres nous avoir donne 400 livres par son
testament : le Pere Beaujour pris des mesures en arrivant

* Memoires, pp. 47, 48. f p. GO. J p. 69 et seq. § p. 70. || p. 72. p. 74.

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

96

a Colmar four etre paye de la ditte somme, mais le Sieur
du Puy n’etant pas en etat d’y satisfaire en dormant de
t'argent, on a tire de luy des toiles et autres merchandises
pour la valeur de la somme en question.”*

The following remark is characteristic of the followers
of Jesus : II y a longtemps que nous souhaitons de vendre
du vin en gros par le moyen des gourmets de cette ville, mais
enfin nous avons reussi cette annee et nous en sommes
redevables a Mr. Muller, Statmestre, qui a engage les gour-
mets a nous rendre service en nous faisant vendre notre vin
aux Suisses.'f

From 1730 : Under date of May 29th, it is reported
that three fields at Yintzenheim had been let on lease,
and the tenant doit nous donner chaque annee trois sacs de
beau froment bien vanne et bien nettoye, soit qm les terres
se reposent ou qu’elles soient ensemencees en orge et avoine.
These very favourable terms for letting, which held good
in all circumstances, were confirmed, although it is
reported of the three fields deux etoient en friche et le
troisieme cultive a grands frais et peu de profit. The tenant
was therefore regularly cheated. J

The following is an instance of “ Christian friendli-
ness ” : The Dominicans had placed carts at the Jesuits’
disposal free of charge, so that the vineyards of the Jesuit
College might be prepared, ce qui nous a epargne au moins
40 limes. In return for this friendliness, the Jesuits pre-
vented the Dominicans from taking foreign pupils. § A
Christian spirit also pervades the following : As the winter
was severe, the Jesuits applied to the town for a consign-
ment of wood. They received it in the form of 10 cordes
de bois. But the Capuchins also seem to have received
wood : il est surprenant que les Capucins aient 30 cordes
de bois chaque annee et nous seulement douze. ||

From 1731 : Le 6. du mois de May nous avons fait

* Memoir es, p. 74. f pp. 73, 79. J p. 81. § pp. 95, 126. || p. 96 et seq.

Theory and Practice of the Vows 97

acquisition de deux schatz [a square measure] de terre
labourable au canton dit Logelweg, ban d' Ingerslieim, moyen-
nant la somme de cent limes et trois limes de tringelt (Trink-
geld). Les raisons qui nous ont forte a faire cet achaft
sont : 1. que ces deux schatz sont voisines des 4 autres que
nous faisons planter en vigne ; 2. qu'il y a huit noyers dans
les dittes deux schatz, lesquels noyers auroient donne beau-
coup diombrage a, la nouvelle vigne ; 3. que ne faisant pas
cette acquisition, il auroit fallu fair une separation entre
I’autre proprietaire et nous, ce qui auroit coute considerable-
ment.* . . . Au mois d’Aoust de cette annee nous avons

appris que Mademoiselle Chauffour avoit fait son testament,
et qu’elle nous avoit legue 600 limes. . . . Pendant le mois
de Decembre le P. Beaujour a veu la copie du testament de
Mademoiselle Chauffour, oil elle augmente son leg pieux de
600 livres, ainsi, si ce testament subsiste, nous toucherons
apres sa mort la somme de 1,200 limes .f

From 1736 : Feu Madame Marguerine) a legue a
notre Eglise, pour orner le Saint-Sacrement, 29 \perles
fines. %

The Capuchins were also forbidden, at the instigation
of the Jesuits, to take foreign pupils. This right, which
brought material advantages with it, was reserved to the
Jesuits. § Dans un temps auquel les vignes etoient fort
recherchees a cause du prix excessif du vin, the Jesuits sold
a part of their vineyards for 1,272 livres pour placer
V argent plus utilement ailleurs. || Purchase of vineyards for
840, 640 124 livres. Testamentary dispositions in favour
of the Jesuits to a not insignificant amount.** Through
the adroitness of their Rector, the Jesuits obtained gratis
from different communities 460 arbres de sapin non ordin-
aires mais extraordinairement longs et gros. The whole was
valued at 1,600 livres.ff Madame la Dauphine presented

* Memoires, p. 99. f pp. 107, 108. J p. 114. § p. 114. |j p. 115.

If pp- 117, 120. ** p. 129 et seq., pp. 132, 13G, 143. ft P- 135.

H

98 Fourteen Years a Jesuit

1,000 thalers to the college at the request of her confessor,
the Jesuit Croust.* Favourable letting of vineyards,
which did not bring in much,f etc., etc.

In 1762, the Chapter of Spalatro presented a memorial
to the Venetian Senate in which it complained bitterly of
the “ intrigues and violence ” of the Jesuits, who tried to
seize upon everything :

“ Besides the handsome allowance which is settled on them
from the public treasury for the maintenance of two missionaries,
they have seized 2,000 ducats which fell to them as a legacy. The
late Archbishop Bizza has also provided for them by another
legacy of 8,000 sequins. In addition to this they possess several
houses. They have let other houses ; they have some properties
in the Spalatro district, and still more important ones on the
Island of Brazza. Consequently things have gone so far that
three or four strangers [the Jesuits] are much better off than many
spiritual communities, and especially than the Chapter of Spalatro,
which consists of sixty persons and has a revenue of not more than
160 sequins .” %

The greed and covetousness of the Jesuits are brought
out in a strong light through events in a German town :

A bitter and continuous feud had begun between the
Jesuits and several Orders [shortly after the capture of
Magdeburg in the Thirty Years’ War] because, contrary
to the text of the Edict of Restitution, the churches and
Church property, which were refused to the Protestants,
were not returned to the former possessors, these very
Orders, but were taken possession of by the Jesuits who
had no legal right to them. The Premonstrants, as well
as the Benedictines and Cistercians, had had to suffer
from the deeds of violence of the Jesuits. They saw
how these sheltered themselves under the favour of
the Emperor, who, in order to stamp out heresy the
more effectively, would have preferred to transform all

t p. 142. X Le B ret Magazin, 1, p. 188.

* 31emoire&, p. 141.

Theory and Practice of the Vows 99

the old monasteries into Jesuit colleges, academies and
seminaries.*

Jesuit acquisitiveness frequently assumed such forms
that even Popes intervened.

Urban VIII., in the Constitution Ex debito of February
22nd, 1622, forbids all members of Orders, “ also those
of the Society of Jesus,” to carry on commerce. Clement IX.
renewed this prohibition in the Constitution Sollicitudo
pastoralis of June 17th, 1669, again calling special atten-
tion to the “ Religious of the Society of Jesus.” He lays
stress on the fact that many from the above-mentioned
Orders, consequently also from the Society of Jesus, had,
in spite of the ecclesiastical laws, carried on commerce
and had evaded the instructions of Urban VIII. by means
of subterfuges and pretexts.!

It is noteworthy here that, wliilst the remaining
Orders are only mentioned in a general way (Mendicants
and non-Mendicants), the Society of Jesus is specially
mentioned and not less than nine times. J

Two lawsuits of recent times reveal the avarice of the
Jesuits and the roundabout ways in which they satisfy
their rapacity in exactly the same hideous forms :

From May 13th to May 16th, 1864, the trial, which at
the time agitated the whole world, of Benedict de Buck,
accused of having threatened to kill the Belgian Jesuit
Lhoire, was held at the Brussels Assizes. After the first
few hours of the proceedings, however, it was no longer

* K. Wittig, Magdeburg als katholisches Marienburg : Historische Zeitschrift
1891, vol. 66, p. 60.

t Acta Sanctae Sedis, VII. (1872), 319 et seq.

J Dulir tries to soften down the special mention of the Jesuit Order when
he writes (p. 645) that, according to Papal privileges, “ the Society of Jesus was
not understood in certain prohibitions, even if these had to do with all the spiritua
Orders, unless specially mentioned.” Duhr does not see that, if this is really
as he says, the special mention of the " Society of Jesus ” by Urban VIII. and
Clement IX. is a convincing proof that the Jesuit Order had had an active share
in commercial and financial operations. For otherwise, on account of the Papal
privileges, it would not have been mentioned.

ioo Fourteen Years a Jesuit

the accused, de Buck, who stood in the dock, but the
Jesuits Lhoire, Hessels, Bossaert and Franqueville. They
were convicted of having induced the millionaire, William
de Boey, who died in Antwerp in 1850, to make a will
which handed over his estate of millions to the Belgian
Jesuits, unjustly passing over de Boey’s poor relations
(the de Bucks) and appointing a sham heir, the lawyer
Valentyns, who was attached to the Jesuits and almost
unknown to the testator. The accused, de Buck (who
had uttered the threat in a rage at his unjust disinheritance
brought about by the Jesuits), was acquitted, and the
accusing Jesuits left the Assize Court branded as legacy-
hunters.*

A lawsuit which took place in July, 1890, at Straubing,
in Bavaria, likewise ended disadvantageously for the
Jesuits. Personal recollections are connected with this :

In 1881, during my stay at Wynandsrade, my fellow-
scholastic, Brother Karl Ebenhoch, died there from
inflammation of the lungs. He had been my “ guardian
angel ” during my postulancy at Exaeten. I therefore
obtained permission to help in nursing him. I was a
witness of his hard death-struggle and death. He re-
peatedly cried out during his last hours : “ Mother, the
money ! Mother, the money ! ” The cry sounded to me
so strange and weird that I made known my uneasiness
to the Rector, the Jesuit Hermann Nix. He eased my
mind and explained everything away by ascribing the
cry to “ inexplicable hallucinations of delirium.” I only
learnt after my departure from the Order that a lawsuit
had taken place in 1890 before the jury at Straubing, in
which the widowed mother of the late Karl Ebenhoch,
Babette Ebenhoch, the Catholic priest of Kronungen,
Johann Hartmann, the Jesuit, Hermann Nix, and a sum

* Cf. the pamphlet, Der J esuitenprozess in Brussel. Cologne and Diisseldorf ,

1864 .

Theory and Practice of the Vows ioi

of 66,000 marks had played the leading parts. The priest
Hartmann was condemned to three years’ imprisonment
and ten years’ loss of civil rights for inciting to perjury,
and Frau Ebenhoch, whom Hartmann had incited to
commit perjury, was acquitted. It appeared from the
documents of the action that Frau Ebenhoch’s son, the
Jesuit Ebenhoch, who died in my presence, had inherited
a sum of 66,000 marks from his grandmother. It was
stated in the will that if the heir died without issue, the
inheritance should pass to two aunts, his mother’s sisters-
in-law. The accused woman did not at first reply to the
President’s question as to what had become of the money
after her son’s death. And thus the President ascertained
that the money had not come to the two aunts, but had
been handed over to the Jesuits in Holland. Finally, the
accused declared that 36,000 marks out of the 66,000 had
been given back to her by the Jesuits. The two aunts
sued for the delivering up of the inheritance for which
the accused was responsible. The proceedings disclosed
that Frau Ebenhoch had obtained the advice of the
Jesuits, and especially that of the Jesuit, Hermann Nix,
as to her action in the case. Letters from this Jesuit,
but without any signature, dated from Ditton Hall, in
England, where Nix was then the “ spiritual father,” i.e.
the spiritual director of the theological scholastics, were
found in Frau Ebenhoch’s possession. The participation
of the Jesuit Nix also follows from the letters of the priest
Hartmann, who had induced the accused woman to make
false affidavits as to her fortune. Nix is not called by his
proper name in these letters, but “ Mr. Dittonhall ” (his
place of residence in England), or “ Mr. Widnes ” (the
Ditton Hall post town), and the remittances of the Jesuits
to Frau Ebenhoch are mentioned as “the sending of
pictures.” A legal document drawn up in the Jesuit Nix’s
presence was read aloud in which young Ebenhoch

102 Fourteen Years a Jesuit

bequeathed his wealth to the Jesuits. The priest Hart-
mann, who lied at the opening of the case, admitted
finally with tears that he had only lied “ because he had
believed it to be his sacred duty not to expose the Jesuits.”
To the President’s question as to whether the Jesuits, and
especially the Jesuit Nix, were consequently at the bottom
of the matter, Hartmann began a reply, but then stopped
short. No doubt this was a reply.*

When the dying Ebenhoch’s cry, “ Mother, the money ! ”
sounded in my ears, I had no idea of the story behind
it, which was to be unfolded a few years later in the
Assize Court of Lower Bavaria. I believed the statement
of the Jesuit Nix, the chief culprit in the lawsuit, that the
dying man had spoken in “ inexplicable hallucinations of
delirium.”

All that has been said with reference to the wealth and
the money-making of the Order and the love of luxury
which sprang from it is confirmed by the strictly private
Memoirs written by the Jesuit Cordara and so frequently
quoted. Dollinger has brought this important document
to light from the dust of the archives at Munich :

“ Many reproach the Society with avarice and an
extravagant lust for wealth. It caused a stir that the
Society should be provided with such large revenues, and
that in a short time its wealth should have reached and
even surpassed that of the old Orders.”

And its historiographer, for Cordara was this for
thirty-five years, can give no other answer to the accusa-
tion than :

“ That which is attributable to the piety of the faithful
was imputed to the avarice and cunning of the Jesuits.”f

Cordara therefore acknowledges the wealth of his

* The documentary account of the lawsuit, with its previous history, is to
be foimd in the writing : Der J esuiten-Sensationsprozess des Pfarrer Hartmann
von Kronungen verhandelt vor dem Schwurgerichte in Straubing. Barmen, 1891.

■f P) enkwurdigke.it en : Dollinger, Beitrage , 3, 66.

Theory and Practice of the Vows 103

Order, but he traces back its origin to the “ piety of the
faithful,” and abstains from saying that the “ piety ”
was, as we have seen, largely stimulated by the “ insinua-
tions ” and the “ gratuitous ” aid of the Jesuits.

Cordara’s account of a conversation he had with the
King of Sardinia is still more plain and incriminating :

The King told him that two things had been specially
harmful to his Order — its boundless wealth ( divitias
immodicas) and its predominance over the other Orders.
I replied : “ This may be so (id ita esse fortasse). And
so far as the wealth is concerned, I have frequently ad-
mitted that, although many colleges suffered from want,
the whole Society might be called rich and opulent ( divitem
et opulentam ).”*

Cordara, it is true, lays stress on the poverty and the
simplicity of life of the individual Jesuits in opposition
to the admitted wealth and luxury of the whole Society.
But the results are poor. For he cannot un write the
words which he sets down in a spirit of complaint and
blame a few pages further on regarding the effeminacy
and luxuriousness of individual Jesuits, of the “ apostles,”
as he sarcastically calls them :f

“ . . . Many of our ‘ apostles ’ wished for a quiet and inactive
life under the shade of the colleges ; they believed that they had
worked very hard when they had spent the whole morning in
hearing the confessions of a few pious women ( mulierculae ). . . .
Many of them, after preaching once a week to a pious congregation
of noblemen or merchants, devoted the rest of their time to the
care of their bodies or to reading, or else spent it in intercourse
with friends or unprofitable conversation. I myself have known
‘ apostles,’ who not only shunned all labour and trouble, but were
* Denkwurdigkeiten : Bollinger, Beitrdge , p. 35 et seq.

f To the King’s reproach with regard to the Jesuit predominance over other
Orders, Cordara replies by referring to the tyranny of the Dominicans, who
as Inquisitors, had at their disposal against their antagonists " the dungeon and
executioner ” ( carceres lictoresque ).

104 Fourteen Years a Jesuit

more effeminate than women ; who thought themselves very
ill-used if they had to forgo their morning chocolate or their after-
dinner nap, if they were deprived at any time of food or sleep.
And yet these were men whom birth and education had not accus-
tomed to luxury ; on the contrary, they had from youth upwards
received a hard, even a harsh training. Their effeminacy was
acquired in the Society of Jesus.”*

I will conclude this chapter with an amusing and
doubtless true story from the satirical pen of Saint-Simon :

“ When a fleet from India was unloading at Cadiz, eight large
cases came to hand labelled 4 Chocolate for the Most Venerable
Father General of the Society of Jesus/ The cases were so exceed-
ingly heavy as to cause curiosity as to their contents. They
proved to be large balls of chocolate, the weight of which aroused
suspicion. A ball was broken open, and gold was found concealed
inside, covered by a layer of chocolate of the thickness of a finger.
The Jesuits were informed of the circumstance ; but these cunning
politicians were very careful not to claim this valuable 4 chocolate/
They preferred losing it to confessing/’f

* DenkwiirdigJceiien : Dollinger, Beitrage , p. G4 ct seg.
f Memoir es, II., 433, 434.

CHAPTER XVII

THE CRITICISM CONTINUED: THEORY AND PRACTICE OF
THE CONSTITUTIONS

Vows are more or less common to all Orders ; it is the
constitutions which show the special characteristics of
each. So, too, in the case of the Jesuit Order. My in-
tention is to show the great discrepancy between the
theoretical excellence of the Jesuit Constitutions and the
actual life and work of the Order.

It is, of course, impossible to refer to all the facts in
question ; a few important items must suffice.

THE ARROGANCE OF THE ORDER

The Constitutions overflow with humility ; the glory
of God is everything, the glory of the Order nothing. And
indeed a Society of Jesus should be founded on humility.
But it is only on paper that humility is the basis of the
Society of Jesus. Its life and work are characterised by
a spirit of unlimited arrogance. Though the Constitutions
constantly refer to the Jesuit Order as “ our poor little
Society ” ( minima societas), in word and deed it assumes
the rank of the greatest, the maxima societas, whose glory
fills the world, and in comparison with which all else is
small and mean. “ God, I thank thee that I am not as
other men are ... or even as this publican.” These
hard and haughty words of the Pharisee express the real
but unwritten motto of the Jesuit Order. Their current

105

106 Fourteen Years a Jesuit

motto, “ Everything to the greater glory of God ”
{Omnia ad major em Dei gloriam), proclaimed aloud wherever
they set foot, and graven in gold and stone on all their
works, appears in the light of history to be a mere false
pretence under the cloak of religion.

Hard words these, and before I attempt to justify
them by the acts and declarations of the Order itself, I
will make way for a man whose judgment on the Jesuit
Order is of the first importance and whose heart was full
of love and enthusiasm for it.

I refer to the Jesuit Cordara, of whom I have spoken
before. For thirty-five years, up to the suppression of the
Order in 1773, he held one of the most important positions,
that of historiographer to the Order, which gave him
official knowledge of everything, even the secret reports.
After the suppression of the Order, Cordara published
Memoirs, in which he raises this among other questions :
“ Why did God permit the suppression of the Jesuit
Order ? ” Here is his answer :

“It is doubtless true that we had also grown accustomed to
condoning numerous crimes according to human fashion. (Multa
etiam inter nos admitti consuevisse humano more crimina •pro non
dubio habendum.) It may also be assumed that a special stain
attached to the Society, which excited the wrath of God against us.
Let us examine its nature more closely, although the Divine judg-
ment be dark and far from human comprehension: The investigation
will lead us, if not to positive, at least to probable conclusions.
... I presume that it [the Society of Jesus] appeared holier
than it was, in any case not of such holiness as is required by the
Constitutions and the sacredness of our duties. . . . Our churches
were splendid, and their adornment expensive. The festivals of
the saints were celebrated with pomp and splendour. But was it
solely for the sake of religion, or rather to show off our power ?
This is hidden from men, who only see the exterior, but not from
God, who proves hearts and reins. ... I have often wondered
why it was that with us any transgression against chastity was

The Constitutions

107

so severely punished, whereas our Superiors were so mild and
indulgent towards other transgressions of a more grievous nature,
such as backbitings, slanders, and revilings. And I believe that
it was not because the former were worse and more displeasing
to God, but because, if they had become known, they might have
obscured the power and glory of the Society.* The sin of pride
is secret. It creeps into good actions, so as to be hardly distin-
guishable from virtue. But God, Who seeth in secret, is not
deceived. . . . Nothing is more hateful to God than pride.
Nothing rouses His anger more or provokes Him to vengeance.
God resists the proud, and gives His grace to the humble. But
if we do not wish to deceive ourselves, we must confess that our
community has suffered much from this disease. Our novice-
masters filled us with this spirit when they impressed on our tender
minds so great an estimate of the Society. They represented
admission to the Society as an incomparable gift, a benefit of God,
than which there could be no greater. They tell anecdotes of
those who preferred the habit of the Society to tiara and purple.
It is in vain that they afterwards combat pride after having sown
such seeds of it. With this same spirit the youths are inspired
during their studies, as no authors are praised except Jesuits, no
books prescribed but such as are written by Jesuits, no examples
of virtue quoted but such as are represented by Jesuits, so that
these poor youths are easily convinced that the Society of Jesus
excels all other Orders in learning and holiness. And some weak-
minded persons even believe that everything praiseworthy done
in the world was done under the auspices of our Society. This
opinion, adopted in youth, the majority do not abandon in later
life, and I know some old men who still continue to live in this
delusion. And I confess that I myself was thus deluded for a
long time. . . . And all the external circumstances favoured this
pride and arrogance. The magnificence of the buildings, the
splendour of the churches, the pomp of the festivals, the favours
of the populace inspired us with pride. Wherever we turned our
eyes, we met with occasions for pride. . . . Then there was the

* Cordara’s words are a valuable testimony to the fact that the Ordinance
of General Acquaviva, not to punish breaches of chastity if they have not given
rise to public scandal, is generally observed.

io8

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

great multitude of our flatterers, who spoke to us almost solely
about the superior merits of the Society and the defects of other
Orders. . . . There were certain differences, too, between the
Society of Jesus and the other Orders, so that the main body of
Jesuits believed that they had nothing in common with members
of other Orders and considered them as greatly inferior. . . .
Another source of pride within the Society was the noble rank of
many Jesuits. As all [Jesuits] treated one another as brothers,
even those who were not of the nobility seemed to acquire that
rank, and were regarded outside the Order as aristocrats. . . . The
entire Society of Jesus, at least in Italy, was permeated by irrational
pride, and but rarely a Jesuit gave precedence to a member of
the nobility. Even our lay brothers regarded themselves as noble,
and on this accoimt better than members and priests of other
Orders. I may quote here an occurrence, true, though almost
incredible, which happened to me when I was staying for my
health at the country house of the Roman College at Albano. One
of our lay brothers named Jarolfo was there as manager of the
country house and other property belonging to the Collegium
Romanum. Although himself the son of a peasant, he was much
honoured by the villagers as the superintendent of great possessions
and treated almost as a prince ( dynasta ). He told me that at
some festivals he was invited to the banquets of the Franciscans,
and boasted that on such occasions the seat of honour usually
occupied by the superintendent of the monastery was given to
him. I reproved him gently, and tried to make him understand
that he should take precedence of lay brothers, but not of priests,
which latter was not seemly. To which he replied in irritation
(stomachans) : ‘ As if lay brothers of our Society were not equal
to the priests of other Orders.’ So much superior our people deemed
themselves to those of other Orders. The majority of Jesuits
believed that they had nothing in common with other Orders, and
considered them as greatly inferior to themselves ... Of these
differences [between other Orders and the Order of the Jesuits]
the Jesuits boasted, and held them as marks of distinction and
deemed themselves above all other monks. . . . All this [the
merits of the Dominicans] most of our people either ignored or
deprecated, and considered themselves equal or superior to the

The Constitutions

109

Dominicans ; their opposition they declared to be creditable to
themselves, and whatever could break the power of this most
powerful Dominican Order, and obscure its reputation, they attri-
buted to their own glory. On all other Orders they looked with
something approaching contempt. They were continually bragging
of their Bellarmin, Suarez, Sirmond, Petavius [famous Jesuit
authors], and boasted the more insolently of the merits of these
others, because they themselves, having little or no knowledge of
the history of literature, believed that hardly one other first-class
author existed besides those mentioned. ... I have known few
among my fellows, who preferred foreign [non-Jesuit] preachers
or scholars to their own, but many who despised and ridiculed
them. Another more subtle kind of pride I seem to have recognised
in that immaculate chastity of the members so much extolled by
the multitude, and I do not know if God has not been provoked
by this very pride to desire the destruction of the Society. Chastity
was highly valued by the Jesuits ; they basked in its splendour,
they boasted of being distinguished by it from other monks. I
have often heard them say that much that was disgraceful was
spread abroad about other Orders, many bad examples were set
by them, but that nothing of the kind happened among the Jesuits.
By means of such talk they were not only tempted to secret vain-
glory, but they took occasion in consequence to lord it over other
Orders, and to despise these latter as the scum of humanity. They
did not consider that the boast of chastity is as nothing in God’s
eyes if love be not added unto it, and that in the Gospel those
virgins were called foolish who had not the oil of love in their
lamps; They did not consider that before God humility is worth
more, and is more excellent, than chastity. 55 *

To these words, so full of emotion and religious
feeling, I need add nothing of my own. It will suffice to
quote a few more facts from the Order’s endless record
of arrogance.

It was revealed to Saint Mary Magdalene of Pazzi
that God in heaven delighted so greatly in two saints,
that it was as if there were no other saints in heaven

* Cordara, S.J., Denhwurdigkeiten. Bollinger, Beitrdge, 3, 64-74.

no

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

beside them ; these were St. John the Evangelist and
St. Ignatius Loyola.* **

The Jesuit Ludovicus Mansonius, Provincial of the
Neapolitan Province, a particularly prominent member of
the Order, reports that Christ had appeared to the sainted
virgin Johanna ab Alexandro, a penitent of his confes-
sional, on the seventh of June, 1598, in the Jesuit church
at Naples, and had said to her :

“ I desire that everyone should love the Society [of
Jesus] specially, because it is My Society, and I constantly
bear it in My heart, and cannot allow that a member
thereof should suffer from any greater fault. . . . Know
also, 0 My daughter, that as long as My Society con-
tinues, and I desire that, being named with My name,
it should continue to the end of the world, I require this
one thing of its members, that they walk in My footsteps.”f

In the discussion on the surrender of the Carolinian
Academy at Prague to the Jesuits, the Order declared :

“ No one could watch more carefully or conscientiously
over the maintenance of the Catholic Faith in the kingdom,
no one could distinguish more accurately and safely
between true and false doctrine, finally no one could
better train the young in piety and good conduct, than
the Society of Jesus, which disregarded all earthly gain
or profit, and was wholly consecrated to virtue and
religion.” }

The Jesuits Hover and Miller write :

“ The reputation of the comparatively new Society of Jesus
began just at that time to spread more and more. Its founder,

* See Dollinger-Reusch, Moralstreitigfceiten , II., 350.

f Ibid., I., 529, and II., 346. The “ revelation ” on the retaining of the
name — Society of Jesus — is a favour “ from Heaven ” to Sixtus V., who, hav-
ing resolved to alter the name, died suddenly in 1590, and perhaps also a warning

** from heaven ” to his successors not to expose themselves to a similar fate.
Comp. Hubner, Sixte-Quini (Paris, 1870), II., 54, 55.

+ Tomek, Geschichte der Prager UniversitiU (Prague, 1849), p. 253.

The Constitutions

hi

Saint Ignatius Loyola, had recently'been beatified by Paul V. ; the
fame of Francis Xavier, the Apostle of India and Japan, filled the
Catholic world. Peter Canisius was considered the 4 hammer of
heretics 5 in Germany ; Spain was proud of her Duke of Gandia,
the humble holy Jesuit Francis Borgia ; Laynez, and Salmeron had
distinguished themselves in the Council of Trent as extremely
learned theologians ; Aloysius and Stanislaus were venerated as
examples to the young, and 4 angels in the flesh 5 ; Bellarmin and
Suarez were quoted by all people of culture. News penetrated
to Europe from Japan, India, China, and the rest of the foreign
missions of the splendid successes of Jesuit missionaries. From
England came reports of the glory of their preachers and martyrs,
of a blessed Father Edmund Campian, Garnet, Parsons, and so
many others. Germany boasted, besides the blessed Father
Canisius, of a venerable Johannes Rem, and of many other notable
preachers and great men. The schools and universities of the
Jesuits vied with the best establishments of Europe. . . . When
Donna Arsilia Altissimi heard the funeral bell of the Roman College
in the morning of the 13th of August, she said to her two daughters :
4 A Jesuit must have died just now ; come, let us pray for his
soul.’ They knelt down at the altar of their private chapel, and
(to quote her statements on oath) : 4 With Victoria and Anna I
desired, beads in hand, to say the Be Profundis far the dead, but;
strange to say, the Te Beum rose to my lips instead. I tried for
a second, third, and fourth time, but never oould utter the Be
Profundis. Then my daughter Victoria tried, but she could not
say it either, but said against her will : 4 Glory be to the Father,
and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost. 5 We marvelled, and
said to one another : 4 A great saint must have died in the
College. 5 In the afternoon we went to the Church of the College,
and found an enormous crowd of people in it. There we heard
that a young Belgian Father [the Jesuit Berchmanns, canonised
by Leo XIII.] had died in the odour of sanctity. . . .

44 On August 14th, 1621, at four o’clock in the morning, the
Jesuit lay-brother, Thomas di Simoni, was favoured with the
following revelation : He saw heaven open. From a lofty, shining
throne of clouds he beheld Mary, Queen of Angels, descending to
him. Two princes of heaven carried her on a splendid throne.

112

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

One of them was robed in a white surplice. As he was on the
other side of the Queen of Heaven, the lay brother could not see
his face, but he thought it must have been St. Aloysius [also a
Jesuit]. The other was Johannes Berchmanns in the habit of the
Jesuits.”*

The bombastically boastful words of the Jesuit Loffler,
quoted in Chapter V., on the Marian Congregations, are
applicable here too, also the arrogant “ revelations ”
as to the predestination of all Jesuits to salvation and
above all a literary monument of pride, self-erected by
the Order.

The work, Imago primi saeculi Societatis Jesu, “ A
Picture of the First Century of the Society of Jesus,”
appeared in 1640 at Antwerp. On account of their
unbounded arrogance, its contents gradually grew ex-
tremely unpleasant to the Order. How much this work
was felt to be an incubus by the Order was proved by
the communication made by Gerhard van Swieten to
Maria Theresa on December 24th, 1759, according to which
the Order was trying to buy up all the copies at high prices.

“ Le ‘ saecvlum primum societatis ’ est td que la Societe
[de Jesus ] rachepte tons les exemplaires a grand prix pour
anmntir la memoire, s’il jut possible. . . . Ce livre fera
toujour s la confusion de la Societe .” f

To this day the Jesuits try to represent the “ Imago ”
as “ essays of young scholastics,” or, as the Jesuit Duhr
expresses it, merely “ a poetical and rhetorical festival
oration.”J The attempt is thoroughly dishonest.

The mere outward form of the folio volume published
by the then famous Plantin Press (Balthasar Moretus),
almost 1,000 pages, typed and illustrated with obtrusive

* Leben des heiligen Johannes Berchmanns (Diilmen, 1901), p. 50 f, 190 f, 194.

f Contributed by Fournier, Gerhard van Swieten als Zensor : Sitzungsberichte
der 'philosophisch-historisclien Klasse der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenechajten $
v. 24, p. 454.

J J esuitenfabeln, p. 560.

The Constitutions

113

luxuriousness, such that Cretineau-Joly is forced to admit
“ le luxe de la typographic et Vart de la gravure,”* contradicts
the repeated assertion of Jesuits as to “ mere exercises in
style of young scholastics.” “ Mere exercises ” are not
published in such luxurious garb. Indeed the title-page
states that the Flemish-Belgian Province of the Order
had “ designed ” the “ picture ” : Imago ... a pro-
vincia flandro-belgica . . . repraesentata, and in the
Imprimatur of January 8th, 1640, the Jesuit Johannes
van Tollenare, Provincial Superior of the Flemish-Belgian
Province, says :

“ After three theologians of our Society had revised
the book, ‘ A Picture of the First Century of the Society
of Jesus,’ drafted by the Flemish-Belgian Province of the
Order of the same Society.”

The portentous volume is, therefore, the description of
the life and work of the Society of Jesus, officially drafted
by one of its Provinces and presented to the Society on
the special occasion of the centenary celebration of the
Society of Jesus.

In these circumstances it would be absolutely impos-
sible to speak of insignificance in connection with the
Imago, even if its authors had been really “ young
scholastics.” For the prestige they lacked would be amply
supplied by that of the three theologians who were com-
missioned by the Provincial to examine the work and
who passed it for press. Above all, there would be the
important prestige of a whole “ Province,” which adopted
and published the contents of the work as its intellectual
property.

But the Jesuitical evasion as to the scholastic author-
ship may be refuted from the work itself. For the very
preface states that the work had been composed and
published by very busy men (conceptum, compositum ab

* Histoire de la Comyagnie de J esus, 3 , 471 .

H4 Fourteen Years a Jesuit

hominibus occupatissimis), an expression utterly inapplic-
able to scholastics, and on page 24 it says that the
strenuous occupation of the authors consisted of preaching,
teaching of various branches of knowledge, and perform-
ance of the other offices of the Society. But such
occupations are not for scholastics.

These words of the Imago were naturally known to the
Jesuit Duhr. Yet he writes untruthfully of “ poetical and
rhetorical festival orations ” and of the “ poetical and
rhetorical effusions of the Jesuits and Jesuit students ”
which had been “ collected ” in the Imago.*

Through the irony of history, however, Duhr was given
the lie by one of his own Order. The Jesuit Bremer con-
fesses, in his small Church Lexicon, f that the author and
designer of the Imago was no less a person than the chief
hagiographer of the Order, the Jesuit Bollandus, whose
name is on the gigantic work Acta Sanctorum. Let us,
however, assume Duhr’a gross prevarication to be true. If
young scholastics had really collaborated in the work, this
would render its significance the greater. For the deduction
would be that the contents of the Imago are the genuine
embodiment of the true Jesuit spirit, that spirit in which
the young scholastics of the Order have themselves been
trained, that spirit which is fostered in them by the
Order itself from the first hour of their novitiate, as the
Jesuit Cordara has so well described it.

Besides, the written work of students is submitted to
the strictest supervision and examination by their superiors.
And if the spirit of the Imago had not been the genuine
spirit of the Jesuits, how could a whole Province with
its head have backed the young students, and have
imprinted on their work the official stamp of its approval ?
No ! the magnificent volume, Imago primi saeculi Societatis

* Duhr, J esuitenfabeln , pp. 506, 507.

t Kirchliches Handlexikon (Munich, 1907), I., 6S5.

The Constitutions

115

Jesu, is a Jesuit product, the genuineness and originality
of which it would be hard to match, and it is, therefore,
of the first importance in forming an estimate of the
Jesuit system. It is true that the estimate must be based
on the point of view of religious asceticism.

The Order of the Jesuits is a religious Order. It even
professes to be a prominent type of what the Church of
Rome calls “ the state of an Order, state of Christian per-
fection ” — so prominent as to consider itself justified in
taking to itself the name of the Founder of the Christian
religion, the ideal of Christian perfection, the name of
Jesus Christ. But the essential characteristics of Jesus
are humility, absence of self-aggrandisement, of all self-
praise, all vainglory, or boasting of His own actions.

From this point of view of Christ, an estimate of
the Imago and the spirit which produced it must be
condemnatory. Not the spirit of Christ is expressed in it,
but the anti-Christian spirit of what Catholic asceticism,
in strongest aversion, calls “ the world.” Most substantial
pride, vain arrogance, immeasurable ambition abound in
this centennial volume. Spiritual pride it was, that cardinal
sin against which the Scriptures so specially warn Christians,
which alone indited the composition of the Imago, so
exclusively and so emphatically indeed that, even if the
work had been the product of a secular society, not obliged
to follow ascetic principles in the description of its actions,
the excess of self-glorification displayed in it would still
be loathsome and revolting.

In the first place, let us look at the illustrations of the
Imago :

The title-page displays, in the figure of a virgin, the
Society of Jesus enthroned on the back of Chronos, the
God of time. Above it are floating angels, holding crowns
of victory with the inscriptions : To the teacher ( doctori ),
the martyr ( martyri ), the virgin ( virgini ). On lofty columns

n6 Fourteen Years a Jesuit

there are two angels blowing trumpets, whence issue
scrolls with the words : “ Loyola embraces a hundred
years,” and “ May he encompass the whole world.” Six
shields, borne by angels, represent the birth of the Society
of Jesus, the spread of the Society over the whole earth,
the Society as benefactress of the world, the Society
growing famous through persecutions, the Society loved
by Belgium (referring to the publication of the Imago by
the Belgian-Flemish Province). Like the frontispiece are
the illustrations of the text. Under the superscription :
“ The Society of Jesus,” is a picture of the sun shining
on the globe ; below this the verse of the Psalm : “ And
nothing is hid from the heat thereof.”* Under the heading :
“ Prophecy for the coming century of the Society of
Jesus,” a picture of Noah’s Arkf floating on the waters.
Under the heading : “ The Society of Jesus spread over
the whole globe fulfils the prophecy of Malachi : ‘ For
from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of
the same, My name is great among the Gentiles ; and in
every place incense shall be offered unto My name, and
a pure offering,’ ” the two hemispheres are represented. I
Under the heading : “ The Society spreads the faith over
the whole world,” a picture of four trumpets resounding
from clouds, below which is the verse of the Psalm :
“ Their line is gone out through all the earth.” § Under
the heading : “ Conversion of kingdoms and provinces by
the Society of Jesus,” a picture of the globe suspended
and floating freely from an elaborate pulley, with an angel
turning the lever ; below this : “ Give her a foothold and
she will move the earth,” and below a bombastic poem
on this gigantic feat of “ the descendants of Loyola.”||
Under the heading : “ The Society equipped for missions,”
a picture of lightning darting from clouds, and splitting
rocks, below this a verse from the book of Job : “ He

* P. 43. f P. 51. $ P. 318. f P. 320. || P. 321.

The Constitutions

117

sendeth lightnings, that they may go, and returning say
unto him, Here we are.”*

Under the heading : “ The Indian Missions of the

Society,” a picture of an angel with a bow and arrow,
standing between the two hemispheres ; below this : “ One
sphere does not suffice.”]" Under the heading : “ The
Society’s task is to act and suffer strenuously,” a picture
of a bull standing between ploughshare and sacrificial
altar ; below this, “ Ready for either.” + Under the head-
ing : “ The Society exhausts itself without remuneration
in the service of its neighbour,” a picture of a fountain
with sevenfold jet ; below this the words from Isaiah :
“ Ho, everyone that thirsteth, come ye to the waters . . .
buy without money and without price.” § Under the
heading : “ Congregation of the Blessed Virgin,” a picture
of the Milky Way, extending across the nocturnal sky ;
below this : “ The way to the Heights.”|| Under the head-
ing : “ The Society by precept and example shows the
way to salvation,” a picture of three angels holding torches
with flames uniting into one ; below this the words : “ The
light itself enflaming giveth light, though lightened for
others.”^} Under the heading : “ Education of Boys,” a
picture of an eagle teaching her young to fly ; below this
the verse of the Scriptures : “ As the eagle sheweth her
young to fly.”** Under the heading, “ The Society trained
to fight during a whole century,” a picture of a strong arm,
proceeding from the clouds, holding a flag rent by the
storm ; below this the words : “ It hath beauty greater
than its own.”"j"f Under the heading : “ The Society is in
vain attacked by its enemies,” a picture of a crowd of men
wearing fool’s caps aiming arrows at the sun ; below this :
“ No arrow hits the sun.” ji Under the heading : “ The
frequent fastings of Ignatius enduring for several days,”

* P. 324. t P. 326. + P. 453. § P. 455. || P. 464

P. 466. ** P. 470. tt P- 564. P. 565.

n8 Fourteen Years a Jesuit

a picture of a bird of Paradise flying across desert lands,
below this : “ He lives on little, because he is close to
heaven.”*

All these pictures are explained by long poems, over-
flowing with complacency and self-righteousness.

The poems suggest the text of the work, which is com-
posed of poetry and prose. Setting aside the poetry, I
will proceed to give specimens of the prose : The Preface
declares Jesus to be the sun, and the Order of the Jesuits
the moon ; it also remarks that it is useless to supply the
Preface with a date, as this is naturally suggested by the
universal rejoicing at the centenary jubilee of the Society
of Jesus. Still, the authors seem to have been somewhat
afraid of the accusation of vainglory, and they therefore
say “ modestly ” : “ Our work could not be under sus-
picion of conceit, as though we wished to praise ourselves
or our own. The Society is wholly the work of God and
not of men. We glorify God’s work. Has He not often
commanded that His works should be extolled with the
highest praises ? Nor need we keep silence concerning
the praise of our forefathers for fear of sounding our own.
Those whom God has employed as helpers and labourers
in so great a work could not be omitted from our pre-
sentment ; their merits are new, divine benefits declared
merely as a public thanksgiving.”

The conclusion is in harmony with the introduction.
When the praise of the Society of Jesus had been con-
tinuously proclaimed for 949 folio pages, we read on
page 950 : “ If we take into account the merits of the
Society and the desires of its members, much yet remains
to be said. But, in order to bring it to a conclusion, let
us greet it [the Society of Jesus] with the words of most
eminent men, but recently written or spoken.” Then
follow laudatory comments by Popes and other persons.

* P. 715.

The Constitutions

119

The work is divided into six books. The synopsis at
the end of the preface gives an excellent general im-
pression of the arrogant spirit pervading the whole, as
a short sketch of the contents of each book, based on a
passage of Scripture referring to Christ, institutes a com-
parison between the Jesuit Order and a definite period in
the life of Christ : “ Who being in the form of God . . .
made Himself of no reputation, and took upon Him the
form of a servant,” and was born a beggar in a stable.
Thus the first book will show how Ignatius, a descendant
of the highest nobility, became a beggar, and as a result
this “ poor little Society ” was founded. After the birth
of Christ we are told of Him : “ ‘ Jesus increased in wisdom
and stature, and in favour with God and man.’ Following
in His footsteps, we shall describe in the second book the
growth of the Society,” etc., etc.

The first book is preceded by an introduction, con-
sisting of seven dissertations. They contain this passage :
“ Those who have died in the Society of Jesus have ful-
filled a century, for age is not measured by the length
and number of years, but wisdom is better in men than
grey hairs.”* The first book describes “ The Birth of the
Society.” “ When that monster of the universe, that
fatal plague, Martin Luther, had cast out all religion from
his mind, and had divested himself not only of the garb
of religion, but also of all its external forms, even the fear
of sin . . . did not the warrior Ignatius face him in
the arena ? ”f As Christ Himself, so also the Jesuit
Order was foretold by the prophets. J Jesus Himself is
the true founder of the Society. “ It is evident that the
Society of Jesus .is distinguished as to time only from the
community of the Apostles. It is not a new order, but
only a renewal of that first religious community whose
one only founder was Jesus.”§ The name “ Society of

* P. 35. t P- 55. t Pp. 59-64. § Chap. III., p. 65.

120

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

Jesus ” was revealed to Ignatius by God Himself.* “ By
no other means is chastity so much endangered as by
the other sex, which often, without any participation of
its own, weakens resolution, shakes firmness and suddenly
precipitates the highest virtue into the abyss.”t

The subject of the second book is the growth of the
Society. In ten chapters, four discourses and eighteen
poems,J with bombastic self-glorification, the spread of
the Order of the Jesuits over the whole world is traced
to the Order’s intrinsic merit. Fifteen pages are filled
with funeral orations ( dogia sepulcralia) on Ignatius and
his first disciples, which vie with one another in arrogant
expression. § The third book describes the actual work
of the Society. In preaching, instruction and education,
the Jesuit Order attains the most excellent results. By
its means morality and piety have been restored, its
charity is unlimited. || The successful activity of the
Jesuit Order in the confessionals is described and praised
in these frivolous words : “ How crowded they are

everywhere ! How often has the industrious zeal of our
confessors been insufficient for the number of penitents.
Crimes are now redeemed more cheerfully and eagerly
than they were formerly committed. . . . The majority
wash off their sins almost as soon as they have burdened
themselves with them.”^f The chariot of God described
by the prophet Ezekiel foreshadows the Jesuit Order,
“ as any honest critic may easily recognise.”** The noble
spirit of the Jesuits ( generositas ) is eloquently praised.ff
Through the sagacity of its members, the Jesuit Order
resembles the eagle. . . . Equipped with wisdom, virtue,
mental qualities, sagacity, and industry, they dis-
tinguish truth from falsehood ; they examine, perceive,
and understand everything, nor do they occupy the

* Chap. IV. t P. 92. { Pp. 204-330. § Pp. 280-295.

|| Pp. 331-400. % P. 372. ** P. 401. ft P. 403.

The Constitutions

121

lowest place in the arena of art and science. All that is
flourishing in the humanities, all the intricacies of philo-
sophy, all the hidden things in Nature, all the difficulties
in mathematics, all the mysteries of the Godhead shining
in darkness would be proclaimed by their works, which
fill great libraries, though I were to pass them over in
silence.”* This self-praise continues for another seventy-
four folio pages of prose and verse, f

The fourth book deals with the tribulations of the
Order"! ; these are unmerited ; their chief cause is the
hatred of the wicked against the Jesuits. On the slanders
directed against the Order : “ The Son of Man came eating
and drinking [the Society of Jesus came after the example
of its leader, contenting itself with ordinary food and
raiment] and they say : 4 Behold a glutton, a drunkard,’
the Society is soft, luxurious, effeminate.”^

The fifth book revels in a display of honours gained by
the Order of the Jesuits.|[ One chapter (the fifth) is filled
with miracles wrought by Jesuits. The next chapter
describes the heroic virtues practised in the Order. The
eighth chapter proves from special “ revelations ” that
everyone who dies a Jesuit goes to heaven. “ It is the
privilege of the Society of Jesus that Jesus Himself comes
to meet every dying Jesuit. ”Tf The ninth chapter enume-
rates the honours shown to the Order of the Jesuits by
Popes, kings and princes. In the tenth chapter the list
of honours is continued by quotations from panegyrics
on the Jesuits by famous men, among them a bishop :
“ 0 sacred Society, formerly not sufficiently known or
appreciated by me, thou excellest the pastoral staff,
mitres, cardinal’s purple, sceptres, empires and crowns ! ”**
It is significant that this fifth book, which extols the
honours of the Jesuit Order, contains nearly the

* P. 406 el seq. t Pp. 406-480. % Pp. 481-580. § P. 659.

[|| Pp. 581-727. U Pp. 648, 649. ** P. 667.

122 Fourteen Years a Jesuit

largest number of pages (147) of the six books of the
Imago.

The sixth book, extolling the glorious achievements
of the Flemish-Belgian Province of the Order, which con-
cludes the work, displays to the last the same arrogant
spirit and hatred of Luther. On page 937, the Belgian
lion is depicted with the Jesuit emblem on its breast,
inscribed all over with the names of Belgian-Flemish
Settlements of the Jesuits. Below the picture is a poem,
entitled : “ The sun [i.e. the sign or emblem of the Jesuits]
on the Belgian lion.” Here is a verse of this poem :
“ He [the Belgian lion] bears Loyola’s emblem graven on
his breast. Greeting from afar with bowed neck the
divine [Ignatius], he rejoices to lick his sacred feet.”

Enough of quotations. Those given are not forced and
far-fetched passages, but real, ordinary samples.

Whoever has struggled through this folio volume, so full
of hatred for those of different faith, and above all, of
endless self-praise, of pompous prayers to God, Christ,
and Mary, all to the tune of “ We Jesuits are specially
favoured, holy, perfect,” of boasts, of exploits, and good
works accomplished by the Jesuit Order, while realising
at the 'same time that it is all meant to be a picture of the
essence and history of the “ genuine associates of Jesus ”
(genuini Jesu Socii), must needs recall the words of Jesus :

rt Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to
be seen of them . . . Therefore when thou doest thine
alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites
do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may
have glory of men ... let not thy left hand know what
thy right hand doeth. . . . And when thou prayest, thou
shalt not be as the hypocrites are ; for they love to pray
standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the
streets, that they may be seen of men.”*

* Matt. vi. 1-5.

The Constitutions

123

“ So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those
things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofit-
able servants: we have done that which was our duty
to do.”*

In the light of these and similar words of Jesus Christ,
the hollowness, nay falsity, of the “ Picture of the
First Century of the Society of Jesus ” must appear as
obvious and clear.

The magnificent volume of the Imago supplies over-
whelming testimony to the correct opinion of the com-
paratively honest Jesuit Cordara, who from his orthodox
Christian point of view saw in the suppression of the Jesuit
Order a judgment of God on their arrogance and pride :
“ for God resisteth the proud.”f

THE RELATION OF THE ORDER TO WOMEN

In the Constitutions and history of the Order there
are two chapters on this subject which almost contradict
one another.

While Jesus and His disciples stood in simple and
natural relationship to women, and innocently admitted
them as followers and helpers, the Society of Jesus
takes up a position towards women which in theory is
distorted and unnatural, and in practice selfishly exploits
them.

In theory it sees in woman the dangerous and intel-
lectually inferior sex, to be surrounded by danger signals
and warnings ; in practice it treats her as a docile creature,
easily influenced, whose devotion is of high value to the
Order.

The theory contained in the Constitutions of the Order
is thus expressed :

* Luke xvii. 10.

| I. Pet. v. 5.

124

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

“ Jesuits are not to undertake the regular cure of souls for nuns
or other women, but they may on occasion ( semel ) hear confessions
of nuns, of one convent for some special reason.” * In hearing
confessions of women they should be severe rather than familiar.
If obliged to speak to women outside the confessional, it should be
in a public place and with downcast eyes. If any priest be sent
to women by his Superior to hear confession, or for some other
purpose, the companion assigned to him by his Superior [generally
a lay brother] is to be in a place where he can see both parties,
so long as the priest may be engaged with the women, but out of
earshot of any secret conversation, so far as the place admits of
this ; if it does not, the priest is to be careful that the door should
remain open, and that the meeting should not take place in a
dark spot.

“ The cure of individual souls, especially of women, should
not be undertaken by our members.! When they [lay brothers]
accompany our priests on visits, especially to women, they are
to observe carefully what rules are prescribed for priests. Besides,
they ought to know that they are obliged on their return to report
to the Superior without being questioned by him, if [during the
visit] these rules have been in any way disregarded.” J

He [the Superior] is not to allow our priests to visit women
nor to write to them except in an urgent case, or in the hope of
great results, and even then he is only to allow it to experienced
and prudent men.§ The rule, that the companion of a priest
visiting women or hearing their confessions should report to the
Superior, if Rule 18 [presence of the companion during the visit
or confession] has been observed, is to be maintained so strictly
that the Superior is to impose on the companion omitting the
report a penance of three scourgings, besides one in public. In
case of repetition, the matter should be reported to the General,
who will then consider if such persons can remain members of
the Order.||

* Constit. VI., 3, 5. t Rules 16-19 for the Priests.

t Rule 72 for the Superior of Professed Houses, and Buie 70 for the Rector.

§ Rule 5 for Lay-brothers.

1| Prom an epistle of General Aequaviva, Nov. 13th, 1607. Inst* S.J. , H.
308 et seq.

The Constitutions

125

“ Our members ( mstri ) should know that not only priests, in
going to women for the purpose of confession or for other reasons,
should strictly observe Rule 18 on the continual presence of the
companion, i.e. that so long as they are engaged with the women
the companion is to be where he can see them, but not hear what
is to remain a secret ; but that all lay brothers are under this
law, whether they themselves visit women or accompany others
of our people. . . . And the companions should know that they
must report to the Superior anything that may have occurred
contrary to this rule and ordination without being questioned by
him immediately on their return.*

“ If the place where the sick woman is lying is so small that
the companion of the confessing priest cannot be present, the former
must report to the Superior immediately on his return [that the
confession of the sick woman had been heard without the com-
panion’s presence], and the Superior should consider if the Father
should go to this place a second time, or if, as I [the General of the
Order, Acquaviva] should be more inclined to think, the care of
the invalid should be left to the parish priests.”f

As regards the advancement of their spiritual life, e.g.
by Exercises, women are placed in a line with uneducated
people ( rudibus ). The particular meditations (of the
Spiritual Exercises) are to be set before women in church,
and in doing this great care must be taken that no
suspicion or offence may arise. For this reason it may
be well to give the points of meditation to women not in
writing but verbally, lest people should think there was
an exchange of letters. If anything has to be given in
writing, it should be done quite secretly, j

An ugly spirit meets us here. It is, of course, in the
first instance, the general ultramontane spirit, already
noted, which estimates and judges woman only as an “ im-
mediate occasion for sin.” But here also we meet with a

* Monita getieralia , 3. Ibid . II., 215.

t Instruct io III. pro Confessariis Societatis , II., 2S5.

J Directorium , 9, 16; Inst. S.J., II., 435.

126

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

striking speciality of the Jesuits : to the general sexual
contempt of women the Order adds as its own specific
a certain social classification.

In a secret instruction by General Mercurian to the
Provincial Superior of the Upper German Province, the
Jesuit Hoffaus, quoted by Dollinger-Reusch* from the
Jesuit manuscripts in the State Archives at Munich (con-
fiscated on the suppression of the Order in 1773), we read :
“ Women of rank, who must, however, at least be baronesses
(haec facultas ad eas, quae sunt infra staturn Baronissarum
extendenda non est), may enter colleges of the Society of
Jesus. But care should then be taken that steady matrons,
and not young ladies ( adolescentulae ) should be the com-
panions of the lady of rank.”

“ Most carefully,” writes another General of the Order,
“ familiarity with women of poor or low estate (familiaritas
tenuiorum et ignobilium feminarum ) should be avoided, as
they are more exposed to suspicion and danger.”f

An “ instruction ” of the sixth General Congregation
of the year 1608 is still more explicit. The interesting
words show how skilfully rigid, theory may turn into
indulgent practice when the transformation seems desirable
for the advantage of the Order:

“ Since custom has decreed, to the loss of much time and
spiritual advantage, that visits and greetings should be exchanged
[with women], we deem it necessary to give definite instruction
as regards the strict observance of the rule on not visiting women.
Certainly we may but rarely hope for great advantage therefrom
except in cases of necessity ( e.g . illness, mourning, death, or some
religious ceremony). But as the customs of the Society, and the
benefits received, and a certain discourtesy implied by refusing these,
do not permit that visits to women should be forbidden to all

* MoralstreitigJcetten, I., 250.

| Instruction of General Acquaviva, Jan. 1st, 1G04. De Spirituad Superiores,
c. 5 de castitate. Ibid. II., 272.

The Constitutions

127

our members, a certain modification [of the rule] is required. At
present we think it most appropriate that regard should be paid
not only to the persons to be visited, but also to those of our
members who are to pay the visit. Three conditions are necessary
in order that a woman be found worthy ( ut digna existimetur) of
being visited by our people. In the first place, she must be a
person of rank and distinction (persona nobilis et primaria ) ; for
there is no need to show special courtesy to all pious women of
whatever estate they be, as such may be sufficiently helped and
instructed in our churches in confession and pious discourse.
Secondly, the woman in question must have uncommon merit as
regards services rendered the Society. Thirdly, the act of courtesy
must be welcome to her husband or her relations.”*

This division of the female sex into aristocratic and
non-aristocratic women, and the different treatment based
upon it, may be traced back to the founder of the Jesuit
Order, Ignatius Loyola, and is thus an original character-
istic of the Jesuits. In confidential communications on
himself, dictated to his amanuensis, the Jesuit Gonzalez,
we read : “ He [Ignatius] said : 4 We must behave pru-
dently, and have no intercourse with women, except with
those of very high rank ”f { nisi essent admodum illustres).

And now to pass from theory to practice'.

There we find that Jesuits very soon and very generally
break through the wire fencing drawn by their Constitu-
tions round women, and show no prudence at all in their
intercourse with them. I have already quoted, in speaking
of the theory and practice of the vows of chastity, the
accusing testimony of the Jesuit Hoffaus, the Visitator of
the Upper German Province. To this may be added as
still more weighty, because founded on a still more
universal knowledge of things pertaining to the Order,
the complaint of General Acquaviva in a circular
epistle to the whole Order, dated December 21st, 1605 :

* Imtructio 111. pro Confessariis Societaiis, 1, 9 ; II., 2SG.

t Acta S.8. , Julii 7, 653*

128

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

“ Lay-brothers [who accompany visiting priests] should be
exhorted that, on returning home in the evening, they must
report to the Superior if the rule [concerning the manner in which
women are to be visited] has been neglected by the priest or any
other for any reason whatever, and those who show themselves
to be less conscientious in this should be treated with severity,
and their confessors should be exhorted to reprimand them sharply,
if they do not observe this rule. ... As regards hearing con-
fessions [of women] in church, the Superiors are charged to have
the confessionals erected in exposed places and in such a manner
that confessors may, as it were, be companions one to another ;
the Superior should also occasionally investigate if the confessionals
have not perchance been moved from their position, and if the
gratings are still intact and narrow.”*

Especially this last remark, on the confessionals not
being displaced and on the gratings being intact and
narrow, forces us to the conclusion that there were grat-
ings which had been damaged and widened for unmis-
takable purposes.

An enlarged grating seems to have existed between
the English Jesuit Garnet, whose acquaintance we have
already made, and his penitent, Lady Anne Vaux.
Passages from letters of the lady to the Jesuit seem, at
any rate, to point to an earthly rather than heavenly love,
and in any case their tone contrasts strongly with that
prescribed in the Constitutions of the Order. Thus Lady
Anne signs on one occasion : “ Yours and not my own,
A.V.” And furthermore : “ To live without you is not
life, but death. 0 that I might see you ! ”f

I have spoken already of the extent to which the
exploitation of rich women, especially in England, was
carried. Rich and aristocratic women were and are special
objects of the spiritual care of the Jesuits, in spite of all

* Inst. S.J., 307, 30S.

f Jardine, .4 Narrative of the Gunpowder Plot (London, 1857), p. 177 et seq. ’

The Constitutions

129

decrees and ordinances of their official Constitutions,
though women of low degree are neglected in accordance
with the Constitutions of Ignatius Loyola, whose reference
to “ women of very high rank ” has been already quoted.
History reports that Elisabeth Roser, a Spanish lady, who
had bestowed many benefits upon him during the early
times after his conversion, was curtly rebuffed by him, when
he began to aim higher; and when she demanded back
money she had lent he broke with her altogether, saying
with emphasis that the Society had no dealings with
women. At the same time, however, he was in close
intercourse with Margaret Duchess of Farnese, daughter
of the Emperor Charles V. He became her father confessor,
and assigned to her his most distinguished associate, the
Jesuit Laynez (his successor as General of the Order) as
travelling companion to Genoa, when the duchess went
to greet her imperial father there. And he himself baptised
her twins born in 1541.*

The activity of Jesuit confessors at the courts of
princes, to be treated in detail in the next chapter, is
chiefly directed to princesses.

This historically established attitude of the Order
is confirmed by my personal experience. I need only
recall to memory what I experienced in the house of my
parents, in so many families of relations and friends, and
later on during my own membership of the Order.

My mother, as a woman of rank, was a continual object
of Jesuit attention, which received outward expression in
a diploma, signed by General Anderledy, in which she was
endowed with “ all the graces and dispensations of the
Order.” The Jesuits Behrens, Wertenberg, Hausherr,
Meschler followed one another in uninterrupted succession
for decades, till her death in 1903, as directors and

* See Druffel’s Ignatius von Loyola an der romischen Kurie (Munich, 1879),
pp. 9 and 36.

J

130

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

father confessors. My dear, good mother ! How com-
pletely she surrendered herself to Jesuit influence in the
best of faith and with voluntary self-sacrifice. She obeyed
her Jesuit advisers like a child. How trustfully she heaped
benefits upon them and gave liberally of the goods of this
world to her “ disinterested ” spiritual directors ! I am
filled with anger and bitterness when I remember how
Jesuitism inveigled and exploited this remarkable woman.

Many other women, relations of mine, fared similarly.

The soul of my sister Antonia was completely enslaved
by the Jesuits Behrens, Brinkmann and Hausherr, as was
that of my aunt Countess Therese von Loe (nee Countess
Arco-Zinneberg) by Hausherr. The Jesuits Behrens,
Loffler, Meschler, Fah, Schaffer, frequented the castles of
the Rhenish Westphalian, Silesian, and South- German
Catholic nobility, and everywhere it was rather the lady
than the lord of the manor that submitted to Jesuit
direction. The noble families of Droste-Vischering, Galen,
Fiirstenberg, Geyer, Matuschka, Waldburg- Wolf egg, Met-
ternich, Oberndorf, Loe, Stolberg, and others were and
are linked to the Jesuits by their womenkind.

When I myself, on completion of my ascetic and
scholastic training, entered on my work as member of the
Order, it was the obvious intention of my Superiors to
take advantage of my many aristocratic connections, and
without my own repeated, energetic opposition I should
have doubtless turned into an “ aristocratic ladies’ con-
fessor.”

When I had to give Spiritual Exercises to a number of
ladies of rank in 1889 or 1890, I found out how little the
Constitutions of the Order, as to the way in which Exer-
cises are to be given to women, are observed in the case
of ladies of rank. They were not given in either church or
chapel as required by the rule, but in the ballroom of the
splendid Erbdroste Manor at Munster in Westphalia.

The Constitutions

131

The avoidance, nay refusal, of the pastoral care of
n uns emphasised in the Constitutions is humbug also.
There is no Order which exercises a more comprehensive
and systematic influence over nuns, or stands in closer
connection with them, than the Jesuits. Even those nuns
who ought naturally to turn for direction to the monastic
orders of their own name and spirit, such as the various
orders of Franciscan nuns, receive their ascetic and pious
training from the Jesuit Order. Only the Dominican nuns
form an exception. The old antipathy between the sons of
St. Dominic and the sons of St. Ignatius is after all too
strong. Otherwise the Jesuit is the constant guest of
nunneries. The number of Exercises he gives, of con-
fessions he hears there, is legion. During the short period
of my work in the Order I was employed a good deal
in the nunneries of England, Holland, and Germany.
This work is much sought after ; the good nuns take
excellent care of the father, and show their gratitude
abundantly in coin of the realm for the pious services
rendered gratuitously. Violent outbursts of jealousy are
not infrequent among the Jesuits who, according to their
Constitutions, decline the pastorate of nuns, on account of
real or imaginary poaching on their special preserves in a
nunnery. I may quote a tragi-comic experience of my
own. In the summer of 1892, when I was studying in the
Royal Library at Berlin (which sealed my resolution to
leave the Roman Catholic Church and the Jesuit Order),
the well-known Jesuit Tilmann Pesch, the Gottlieb of the
notorious Hamburg Letters, was there at the same time.
I was staying with the Grey Sisters in the Nieder Wall-
strasse, and he I do not know where. One day at noon,
while I was sitting at dinner, Pesch rushed into my room
and heaped abuse on me, accusing me of wishing to give
Exercises to the Ursuline nuns in the Lindenstrasse,
which he himself had intended to do. As I was absolutely

132

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

innocent, I wrote to my Superior at that time, the Jesuit
Frink at Bxaeten, and complained seriously of this foolish
exhibition of jealousy. In his answer, the Rector tried
to find excuses on the score of “ peculiar temperament.”

The following anecdote will show how well these nun-
shunning Jesuits fare among them:

The Jesuit Meschler was travelling with several French
Jesuits from Rome across the Alps, after the General
Congregation of 1883. In some town in the north of
Italy — I believe it was either Milan^or Turin — they spent
the night. But the French Jesuits did not stay with
members of their own Order according to the statute,*
but, as Meschler told me, in the beautiful nunnery of the
Sacred Heart. Of course, they were more comfortable
there.

In the light of all these facts, it was truly Jesuitical
for Ignatius Loyola to ask Paul III. to deliver himself
and his Order from the spiritual direction of women and
nuns,f and for the Order to persist in the pretence : “ We
exist not for women and nuns, but for men ! ” It would
be more honest to add : “ But women and nuns exist
for us.”

* Regulae peregrinorum , II.

*(• Genelli, S.J., Leben des heiligen Ignatius von Loyola (Innsbruck, 1848),

p. 262.

CHAPTER XVIII

THE CRITICISM CONTINUED : POLITICS AND CONFESSORS

There has been no more constant reproach against the
Jesuit Order, and hardly any that the Order itself has
repudiated with greater moral indignation, than that of
political activity, in contravention of the Constitutions
and the destination of the Order, which is declared
emphatically to be not of the world, but devoted exclu-
sively to the salvation of the soul.

In a letter to the Courrier Frangais, in Paris, in 1847,
Johannes Roothaan, General of the Order, still declares
with an air of most ingenuous sincerity :

“ Politics are absolutely foreign to the Society. It has never
joined any party, no matter what its name. The purpose and
vocation of the Order is greater and loftier than any party: . . .
Slander may delight in spreading false assertions accusing Jesuits
of taking part in political intrigues. I have yet to be shown that
even a single member of the Order entrusted to my care has offended
in this respect against the very definite rules of the Order.”*

And, indeed, whoever innocently peruses the Constitu-
tions would be inclined to believe the simple, straight-
forward-sounding words of Roothaan. For they state,
as plainly as could be desired :

“ As our Society, established by the Lord for the propagation of
the faith and the salvation of souls, can fulfil its purpose under
the banner of the Cross for the benefit of the Church and the edifica-

* Ebner, S.J., Bdeuchtung der Schrift des Dr. Joh. Kdle : Die J esmtengymnasien
in Oesterreich (Linz, 1874), p. 53G.

133

134

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

tion of our neighbour through the spiritual service and weapons
peculiar to it and its Constitution, it would injure these and expose
itself to great dangers by putting its hand to worldly concerns or
affairs of politics and the State. That is why our fathers have
very wisely ordained that we who serve God should not become
involved in things from which our vocation must shrink. And as our
Order, especially in these dangerous times, is in bad odour in many
places, and with various princes (the maintenance of whose love
and favour should be counted as a service to God, as our Father
Ignatius of sacred memory believed), perhaps through the fault of
some, or through ambition, or indiscreet zeal, whereas the odour
of Christ is needful for fruition, the Congregation has decided that
even the appearance of evil must be avoided, and the accusations
repudiated, even those arising from false suspicions. Therefore, our
people are forbidden emphatically and earnestly by this present
decree to engage in these public affairs, even if invited or tempted
to do so, or to let themselves be moved by entreaties or persuasions
to deviate from the Institute of the Order. The Patres defintiores
have also been charged to indicate the most effective remedies for
this disease. 53 *

“ By virtue of sacred obedience, and under penalty of ineligibility
for all offices and dignities, and loss of the right to elect and be
elected, our people are forbidden to meddle with the public and
worldly affairs of princes which concern the State, or to presume to
be charged with things political. The superiors are strictly charged
not to allow our members to interfere with such things in any way.
If they perceive that some are thus inclined, they are to report
them as soon as possible to the Provincial, so that he may remove
them from their posts, if there is opportunity or danger of their
becoming involved in such affairs. 3 3 f Similar prohibitions are
repeated in Canon 12 of the fifth General Congregation, and in the
Monita generalia , 18. j

Yes, indeed ! If the Jesuit Order were not permeated
by an abysmal contradictoriness founded on conscious
insincerity, as I have already so frequently pointed out.

* Congreg. 5, Decret. 47, Inst. S.J., I., 254 et seq .

f Congreg. 5, Decret. 79, I., 269. % I., 485; II., 217.

Politics and Confessors

i35

To the non-political programme of its Constitutions, and
the non-political declaration of its General, uttered in the
deepest note of conviction, are opposed as weighty accusa-
tions the political actions or rather factions of the Order,
almost from the first year of its establishment.

Not the “ welfare of the souls ” of men, so piously
placed in the foreground, is the purpose of the Jesuit Order ;
its aim always and everywhere, in detail as in general, is :
Government of the individual, the family, the State, attain-
ment of a definite influence on the current affairs of the
world. And that is why the Order is intensely interested in
politics.

Until 1773, the year of its suppression by Clement XI Y.,
the Jesuit Order intervened decisively and assiduously,
but as much as possible in secret, in the politics of almost
all European countries. And in the genuine ultramontane
and Jesuitical spirit, the Order cloaked its political activity
with religion by establishing from the beginning of its
labours the institution of princely confessors, an institution
— I emphasise this word as expressing an organisation —
which, though in the sharpest imaginable contrast to the
Constitutions of the Order, furnishes almost immeasurable
leverage to Jesuit lust of power.

Since the restoration of the Order by Pius VII., in
1814, its active political power has not even distantly
approached that of former centuries. Though the striving
for it has remained the same, the circumstances are altered.
Constitutionalism is not suitable soil for royal confessors,
and many courts, where Jesuit confessors used to hold
their evil sway, have vanished from the scene ( e.g . France,
the Bourbon Courts in Italy, the Episcopal Principalities
of Germany and Poland).*

* One Jesuit confessor of princes, in miniature (as regards the Court, not the
Jesuit), has appeared in the nineteenth century, the Jesuit Beckx (afterwards
General of the Order), who, with his fellow-member, Devis, played the part of such
Jesuits as Lamormaini, La Chaise or Tellier, at the little court of the last reigning

136 Fourteen Years a Jesuit

By no means always, but rarely, indeed, have the
politics of the Jesuits been skilful, still less successful.
Failure upon failure must have been entered in the political
log-book of the Order, until at last it fell a victim to its own
politics. Still the question is not whether the Jesuits were
clever or clumsy politicians, but only whether and to what
extent they took part in political conflicts in spite of their
Constitutions and the oft-repeated solemn assurances to
the contrary.*

As I am not writing a history of the Jesuit Order, I
shall give no connected, complete description of its political
activity. I shall present extracts, snapshots, from the
course of the Order’s existence, extending over nearly four
centuries, but in such abundance that a complete estimate
may be formed.

Neither shall I touch on the question, whether and
how the Order, in its vastness and intricacies, could have
avoided political activity. We are only concerned with
the fact, which is, moreover, naturally evolved from its
system, of its political activity, and with the irreconcilable
contrast between this fact and the assertion laid down
by the Order itself as a principle regarding its avoidance
of politics.

For this contrast contains a huge amount of untruth-
fulness and hypocrisy, and as both these failings charac-
terise the essence of Jesuitism — the system, not the
individual — their exposure is of special value in a charac-
terisation of the Order.

Duke of Anhalt-Kothen, converted to Catholicism at Paris in October, 1825.
And possibly, even probably, the twentieth century may show us in Austria,
always greatly blessed with Jesuits, another confessor of princes in the grand
old style drawn from the Jesuit Order, when the Archdukes Francis Ferdinand
and, still more, Francis Salvator, with their wives, who are wholly devoted to
the Jesuits, ascend the throne of the Habsburgs.

* The political and general ability of the Jesuit Order has been enormously
overrated. In a final estimate I mean to show that the power and danger of
the Order result less from ability and superior skill in applying its various means
than from other circumstances.

Politics and Confessors

i37

My long list of political facts and documents is prefaced
by a caution against political activity proceeding from
the Order itself and, moreover, from a part of the Order
where facts were accurately known. But there is this to
be said about the caution : it was not sincere, as I shall
prove. It was meant to save appearances only.

In his treatise on “ Remedies for the Cure of Diseases
of the Soul ” ( Industriae ad curandos animae morbos),
incorporated in the “ Institute ” of the Order, General
Acquaviva speaks of “ the worldly and insinuating spirit
of the coiu'tier seeking the familiarity and favour of
strangers ( saecularitas et aulicismus insinuans in fami-
liaritates et gratiam externorum).

This paragraph was addressed to the numerous Jesuits
who, as the counsellors of princes, obviously had influence
on political affairs. The General does not straightway
forbid the acceptance of such positions, although they are
contrary to the Constitutions of the Order, but after some
general ascetic counsels as to how the danger of the worldly
spirit of the court might be obviated, Acquaviva says,
with inimitable cunning and equivocation :

“ They \i.e. members of the Order occupying such
positions at temporal courts] are to be exhorted to a wise
reserve ; they are to suggest ( suggerant ) that in some
things princes should apply to other members of our Order,
or to persons outside it, according to circumstances, so
that it may not appear as though our members directed
everything ” (ne videantur nostri omnia mover e).*

This caution is easily understood, seeing that even in
a confidential letter of June 6th, 1579, General Mercurian
writes to the Jesuit Mengin, the confessor of Duke William
of Bavaria : “ The other day a father wrote to me that
a man of great distinction had said to him : ‘ Your
people would do well, and it would be much to the

* Inst. S.J., II., 358.

138 Fourteen Years a Jesuit

Society’s credit, if they kept within their [pastoral]
limits.’ ”*

Thus, but a few decades after the institution of the
Order, its interference in politics had assumed such dimen-
sions that responsible men felt obliged to protect the
religious prestige of the Order, at least in the eyes of the
public, from the unconstitutional and worldly political
activity of numerous members. These cautions were of
no avail, if only because they were not inspired by a
serious desire to check the abuse. General Acquaviva, in
particular, played a double part, as we shall see.

And now to give instances of the political activity of
the Jesuits.

In the latter part of the sixteenth century we meet the
Jesuits Stanislaus Warsewicz and Anton Posse vin as
political agents at the court of John III. of Sweden.
Possevin went about in Stockholm in splendid clothes
and wore “ costly headgear with a black silk veil, more
like a courtier or the ambassador of a prince than the
member of an Order.” Having received the King into
the Catholic Church, he returned to Austria and Rome in
May, 1578, with many commissions for the Emperor and
the Pope. These concerned partly family and partly
public affairs, and were addressed to the Emperor, the
Kings of Poland and of Spain, and to the Pope. Possevin
had tried in every possible way to bring about friendly
and peaceful relations between King John and the Emperor
and the Kings of Poland and Spain, in order, by the pro-
tection of these powerful rulers, to shield him from internal
and external attacks by Protestant princes, and at the
same time to inspire him in this way with courage and
confidence in the fulfilment of his sacred enterprise [the
Catholicising of Sweden].

* Duhr, S.J., Die Jesuiten an den deutachen Furstenhofen dea 16. J ahrhunderts
Freiburg, 1901), p. 62.

Politics and Confessors

139

Nor had John failed to supply Posse vin with the
requisite documents for the establishment and confirma-
tion of these friendly relations with the above-mentioned
courts. Even the affair of the Neapolitan inheritance had
taken a happy turn, owing to the endeavours of Possevin
and the Bishop of Mondevi, Papal Nuncio in Poland.
Possevin was also to urge it again, and if possible to
achieve its success with the assistance of the Pope and the
above-mentioned Powers. Of many things Possevin had
to treat in the name of the King with the Emperor
[Rudolph II.] *

A letter addressed by Father Haller, Rector of the
Jesuit College at Graz, to General Acquaviva, June 11th,
1598, is literally a political report :

“ For many years there have been disputes between Bavaria
and Austria, especially with the Emperor. ... As regards our
people, I doubt if they are quenching this fire with the requisite
love and wisdom. Father Viller acts to the contrary. . . . Both
parties have their adherents, who report from their party point
of view, and thus add fresh fuel to the quarrel. As the matter
is submitted to our people by these reports, there is a danger that
the advice to test the truth of the reports be not given. . . .
But because the cause of Christianity in Germany is obviously
much concerned in the union of the two parties, and the great
influence of members of the Society of Jesus on princes and their
councillors is well known, it would be well worth the Society’s
while to try with greater zeal than before, and with every means
at its disposal, to bring about this reconciliation, especially at
Prague, Vienna, Munich and Graz.”f

The Father Viller here mentioned was one of the most
active political Jesuits in Austria. The following two
passages from letters help to characterise him ; one
from a letter of Archduke Charles to his mother, dated

* A. Theiner, Schweden und seine Stettung zum heiligen Stuhl. Nach geheimen
Staatspapieren (Augsburg, 1838), I., 497, 498.

t Duhr, Die Jesuiten an den deutschen Fiirstenhdfen , p. 46. *

140

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

Rome, the 29th of May, 1598, and the other from a letter
by Viller to the Spanish Ambassador de San Clemente.
The first passage :

“ To Sper [Bavarian Agent in Rome] I have not said
a word, but the Reverent Nuncio, the tutor and my father
confessor [the Jesuit Viller] have given him a piece of their
mind.”*

The second passage :

“ As the Archduchess Maximiliana was dead, he
[Viller] recommended for marriage with the son of the
King of Spain her younger sister of thirteen, Margaret,
who was eligible in every respect.”f

The Jesuit Blyssem, Austrian Provincial, was also one of
the political councillors of the Styrian Court. On the 16th
of April, 1580, he reports from Vienna to General Mercurian :

“ Before Christmas I was summoned to Graa by Archduke
Charles, and had various discussions with him regarding his person,
and the general position of things. Then he begged me to stay till
Easter, so that what he had begun so successfully should be con-
firmed. Your Reverence may see from a few points quoted here
that my stay was not in vain.”

The “ few points ” concern the difficult position of the
Archduke respecting “ the Turk and his obdurate heretical
subjects.”!

Regarding the interference of the Jesuits with respect
to the Protestants and the Augsburg Confession of Faith,
we must not lose sight of the fact that these points were
eminently political. As regards the Turkish question, it
is obviously of a political character, though perhaps not
for the Jesuits. For in a note to the Jesuit Viller, sent by
Archduke Ferdinand on a political embassy to Rome,
General Acquaviva characterises “ Proceedings against the
Turks ” as not pertaining to politics. §

* Hurter, Ferdinand 11. , 3, 582.

t Duhr, Die Jesuiten an den deutschen Furstenhofen, p. 47.

{ Ibid., p. 58. § Ibid., p. 51.

Politics and Confessors

141

We shall see how the Jesuit Caussin, father confessor
of Louis XIV. of France, utilises this principle of Acqua-
viva’s to justify his position. In the winter of 1581-82
Blyssem returned to Graz in order to assist the Archduke
during the sessions of the Diet :

“ Although I much dislike travelling because of the dangers
which I know from former experience and therefore dread, yet I
cannot disappoint the pious prince or the councillors who so
greatly desire it. I shall, therefore, render assistance, as I did last
year, but only in things referring to God, conscience and holy
religion ” *

In the end everything was ranged under the heading
of “ God, conscience, holy religion,” as indeed everything
can be ranged under it. In his “ Instruction to Confessors
of Princes,” to be discussed later, General Acquaviva
simplifies matters still more by indicating “ conscience ”
as the only limit to their actions.

The equivocations of the Jesuit Blyssem are distinctly
and hideously evident in a confidential report to the
General Acquaviva, dated February 28th, 1582.

Blyssem repudiates interference with military or poli-
tical questions, as subjects unsuitable for a confessor;
while in the same breath he tells of having worked out a
report on the military and political question, if and how
the fort of Graz could be manned against the Protestants,
but that “ the document was written in the third person
and without the name of the author ” ; at the end of this
document, actually written by him, but apparently and
in the eyes of the public anonymous, “ he had, as a final
conclusion, given his own opinion.” This conclusion read
as follows :

“ Affairs of war are to be discussed with warriors, and princes,
and men of the world who are versed in such things, and not with
members of the Order.- The profession of the Jesuits does not
* Duhr, Die Jesuiteyi an den deutschen Fiirstenhdfen , p. GO.

142 Fourteen Years a Jesuit

extend to such discussions, on the contrary it absolutely forbids
them.”*

Thus the Jesuit who meddles in politics is safe on all
sides. He himself has composed a military and political
report, but so that the authorship is not to be identified,
and, moreover, he repudiates his own document by refer-
ence to his profession as a Jesuit.

In the second part of his report Blyssem gives the
means to be employed by the Archduke in order to save the
Catholic religion. These means are anything but religious.

Surrender of the arsenal and artillery to the Catholics ;
gradual and unobtrusive increase of soldiers in the fort ;
appointment of Catholic officials ; favours to Catholics ;
treaties with Catholic princes ; expulsion of preachers
from the towns ; prohibition of heretical sermons ;
pastorates, and schools in Graz, etc.f

Duhr, the Jesuit of the twentieth century, reporting
these “ non-political ” practices of his fellow member of
the sixteenth century, is not in the least offended by them.
For him also all this was regulated by conscience. But
when Duhr adds : “ These counsels of Father Blyssem
are quite in harmony with the valedictory decree of the
Reichstag of 1555, ’’I he makes it plain to everyone not
trained as a Jesuit that there is absolutely no domain to
which “ pastoral ” counsels might not extend. Further
reports of the Jesuit Blyssem to Rome grew so “ non-
political ” that the author found it advisable to employ
pseudonyms. The Nuncio is called Substitutus, the Arch-
duke Bedellus, the Provincial (Blyssem himself) Examin-
ator, the General of the Order Rector Academiae, the Pope
Promotor, the Estates of the Realm, Eruditi.

On the 20th of March, 1580, Blyssem reported to the
General of his Order on his intervention in the negotiations

* Duhr, Die Jesuiten an den deutschen Furstenhofen, p. 62. f Ibid., p. 63.

J Ibid., pp. 63, 64, 65.

Politics and Confessors

i43

with the Estates, concerning the separation of the other
Estates from the cities. This report also ends with the
typical assurance : “ I refrain from all political advice,
and only discuss what belongs to my office,” i.e. what
concerns conscience.

What a very elastic conscience ! Even the Jesuit
Duhr, at the end of his description of the “ pastorate ” of
Blyssem at the court of Graz, allows this admission to
escape him :

“ The Jesuits might expect at the court of Graz a
greater interest in the real field of their activity, the moral
and religious life of the court, than in the political measures
against the refractory Protestants.”*

The quarterly reports of the Jesuit College at Brauns-
berg, in Ermeland, of March, 1565, contain the following :

“ In February there began in the presence of the King
the session of the Comitia of the Kingdom of Poland, in
which two of our priests took part, one accompanying the
Nuncio of the Pope, the other the Cardinal [Hosius].f In
May, 1606, the Jesuit M. Mairhofer, Rector of the Jesuit
College at Munich, wrote to Duke Maximilian of Bavaria
on the re-election of a prince-abbot of Fulda. The letter,
founded on a secret report of the Jesuit Rector of Fulda,
is so political that Mairhofer himself thinks it well to
emphasise :

“ I beg that this letter may be kept secret, for it
would be taken very ill of me and of us all [the Jesuits], if
we interfered in political affairs, as indeed only suspecti
vet qui non longe respiciunt (suspicious or shortsighted
people) will say.”{

* Dulir, Die J esuiten an den deutsclien Fiirstenhofen , p. GS.

f Published from the original deposited in the archives of the Cologne Parish
of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary, by Karl Benrath. Die Ansiedelung der
J esuiten in Braunsberg , p, 71.

t For the whole letter, from an original MS. in the State Archives at Munich,
see Stieve, Briefe und Akten zur Geschichte des dreissigjdhrigen Krieges t V. 931.

144 Fourteen Years a Jesuit

It is a very remarkable fact that the Jesuits delegated
to Rome for the General Congregation of the Order by
every Province were also political agents. Thus the
General Congregation, a purely religious institution ac-
cording to the Constitutions of the Order, became the
centre of far-reaching political intrigues.

Steinberger reports that the Electors Maximilian I.
of Bavaria and Anselm Kasimir of Mayence charged the
Jesuits Lorenz Forer and Nithard Biber, delegated by the
South German Province of the Order in 1645, to the
eighth General Congregation in Rome, with commissions
and instructions in order to induce Pope Innocent X. to
promote a separation of France from Sweden, and to sup-
port Germany with money and troops. Innocent was so
unpleasantly impressed by this Jesuit importunity that he
addressed a serious warning to the General Congregation :
to beware lest anyone should interfere in worldly matters.*

Under Henry III. of France, whose murder by Jaques
Clement was glorified by the Jesuit Mariana, the Jesuit
Matthieu was a chief promoter of the League of the Guises.
He was active in Rome, Paris, and Madrid. The heads
of the League employed him repeatedly as political ambas-
sador, especially in treaties with Philip II. of Spain.f

As the Jesuit Cordara reports, the Jesuit Cabrallius
was the ambassador of King Joseph I. of Portugal to the

Pope.J

From the manuscripts deposited in the Court Library at
Vienna, Litterae annuae S.J. Provinciae austriacae (Annual
Reports of the Austrian Province of the Society of Jesus),
of 1615-1771, Krones quotes some interesting details of
the political activity of the Order in Hungary before and
after the Peace of Tyrnau-Linz in the year 1647. At

* Die J esuiten und die Friedensjrage bis zur Niimberger Friedensexekutions -
hauptrezess , 1635- 1050 (Freiburg, 1906), p. 100 et seq.

t Gregoire, p. 301. J Bollinger, Beitrage , 3, 18.

Politics and Confessors

i45

the Hungarian Election and Coronation Diet in 1655 the
Jesuits sought with all their might and cunning the re-
peal of the decrees of 1606 and 1608, which were unfavour-
able to them :

4 4 The Austrian Provincial Bernhard Geyer consulted with the
Catholic leaders on the means of carrying out this difficult enter-
prise . . . this was the secret plan of campaign : First, ways and
means must be found in order to prevent the delegates of the
counties from letting directions hostile to Jesuits prevail, and from
speaking in that sense during the Diet. On the other hand, it was
important to guide the decisions of the monarch in the proper
direction. The Provincial undertook to do the latter. Father Geyer
painted to the monarch the dangers of heresy, and received from
him the most welcome assurances. The General of the Order, Goswin
Nickel,* did not spare petitions to the royal councillors and the
Catholic magnates of Hungary. But the most effective measure
was the influence brought to bear on the delegates of the Diet and
above all on the so-called 4 mixed Compilation Committee, 5 for the
compilation of objects of treaty. . . . Pope Alexander VII. sent
his Nuncio to Pressburg for the furtherance of the desires of the
Jesuits [settlements and the possession of landed property for the
Order] to explain to the monarch there how friendly the Church of
Rome was to the Order and the interests of Catholicism. ... In
the printed annual report of the Order of 1651 there is a remark
actually expatiating on the profit to be derived from the Order for
government purposes. It is too significant not to find a place here.
4 The Secretary of State of the Crown of Sweden, 5 it says, 4 a wise
and not unlearned man, did not hesitate in the presence of twenty
selected magnates to make the assertion that the Austrian dynasty
had nothing more excellent or useful in its realms and provinces
than the Society of Jesus. For with its help the Emperor could
keep the nations conquered by him in faithful obedience with a
mere sign, and direct them at his will. 5 The Report inserts the
remark that the 4 Order did not learn this without a blush of
modesty 5 ; in any case, it took good care to divulge this equivocal

* The only German General besides the present General of the Order, Francis
Xavier Wemz.

K

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

146

praise. But it would be a mistake to consider the Jesuits in the
State of Austria in the light of disguised agents of the Viennese
Government, as grateful tools and supporters of monarchical
interests, with which the Order was determined to rise or fall.
In the great structure of the ruling Order, which extended over all
parts of the world, the Austrian Province (including Hungary)
formed only a part, one link in the mighty chain, the end of which
was in the hands of the central administration — the generalship.
The fathers of the Austrian Province also served the one common
purpose : the authority and power of the Order in the denomina-
tional life of the Catholic world. Thus it would be much more
justifiable to make the assertion that the Order of the Jesuits had
used the Austrian and every other dynasty as a means for its
comprehensive purposes. It served the dynasty as far as it benefited
itself by doing so. And no unprejudiced person following the
history of the development and activity of the Society of Jesus
could deny that the chief aim of its ambition was pre-eminence in
the world of Catholic Orders.”*

When the Polish throne had become vacant through
the abdication of King John Casimir of Poland, Duke
Philip Wilhelm of Neuburg and Jiilich-Burg and Prince
Charles of Lorraine applied for it. The Polish Jesuits
worked for the latter; for the former in particular his
confessor, the Jesuit Joh. Bodler. A few months before
the election, which resulted eventually in the choice of
neither the Duke nor the Prince, but the Pole, Michael
Wisniowiecki, Bodler wrote on the 14th of January, 1669,
to his fellow member Servilian Veilielin, Rector of the
Jesuit College at Munich. His strictly confidential letter
affords a profound insight into the political activity of
the Jesuits and their cunning and duplicity :

“ Recently,” it states, “ a letter from Prince Auersperg, Imperial
Prime Minister for the Duke of Neuburg, had come to Neuburg.
As Auersperg could have no inkling that his letter w T ould be sub-

* Ivrones, Zur Geschichte des J esuitenordens in Ungarn (Vienna, 1893),
pp. 8, 9, 11, 18 et seq.

Politics and Confessors

i47

mitted to the Jesuits lie had spoken freely and bitterly about them.
On account of Auersperg’s bad handwriting, which only the Jesuit
Carlius [the English Jesuit Carly] could decipher, Duke Wilhelm
had given the letter to the Jesuits. He [the Jesuit Bodler] was
sending him [the Jesuit Veihelin] a copy of a passage from Auers -
perg’s letter, but it was exclusively meant for him alone, 6 for you
see how careful we [Jesuits] must be, lest our prince [the Duke of
Neuburg] or the other [the Prince of Lorraine] should learn that
matters which at their urgent request were to have been kept
secret have been read by and made known to us. 5 ”

The important passage from Auersperg’s letter was
as follows :

“ The dilatio dectionis would not benefit Lorraine either. I am
for dismissing Isola’s [Baron L’Isola] secretary. These and other
people are serving the Duke of Lorraine, and this might easily
have caused the rumour that your Excellency was not in favour
here [in Vienna]. Your Excellency need not think that it would
be in his Majesty the Emperor’s power to prevent the Patres
Societatis from working in a different direction, partly as confessors,
partly as Polish Jesuits. It is their way — how long they may succeed
in it God knows — in all promotionibus, that some work for one
party, some for the other, so that they should earn thanks and
benefit, no matter how it may turn out: If your Excellency now,
when there is perhaps still time, would complain of it to the General
[of the Jesuits] it may have the effect of recommending all cautela ?
ne sic pateat, but in toto non esset remedium. Your Excellency has
not deserved it of them [the Jesuits], and the more they interfere
with worldly affairs, the worse they come off, as can be seen in
Spain, and I am sorry for the Society, which did so much good in
the first century.”

The Jesuit Bodler continues :

“ So much for Auersperg. Father Gabriel [Riddler] has trans-
lated this into Latin and thinks of sending it to the General [of the
Order]. Having read these and other similar communications, our
prince continues in kindness to us, but is eagerly trying to find out
what reason induced our patres to work for his rival.”

148

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

The General might perhaps be induced to forbid the
Polish Jesuits their machinations. The Duke wanted to
send Father Riddler to Prague :

“ None of us approve of this plan, neither do we see what he
could accomplish there, especially as the Duke seems to require
of him, what he now condemns in Father Richard, the confessor
of the Duke of Lorraine, and in the Polish Fathers. I hope Father
Gabriel will speak to the Duke about this journey, or at least that
the Duchess may do so, as she wishes to keep Father Riddler here
for her own sake (sui solatii causa), ... I am writing this, not
only that you should know what is going on, but also that you
may help me with your advice. I have hitherto kept silence on
the matter as one that does not concern me, but now, if the matter
ends less favourably for the Society, which is sure to be the case if
the Duke’s hopes are not fulfilled, I may possibly be reproached
for not having written to the General more carefully and in detail,
seeing I was familiar with the course of events. I have written to
him once, but thought afterwards that further reports could be of
no use.”*

It cannot be denied that those who try to promote
religion by force of arms and political revolution are
taking part in politics. Indeed, these violent religious
politics are a fundamental principle of the Jesuits. Of this
we have a striking testimony. A report on affairs in
Scotland, sent by the Papal Agent at Brussels, Monsignore
Malvasia, in 1596, to the Secretary of State of the Papal
Cardinal Aldobrandini, says :

“ The Jesuits consider as one of their established axioms
(assioma stabilito), confirmed by the authority of Father Parsons
[one of the leading English Jesuits], that the Catholic religion [in
England and Scotland] can only be restored by force of arms.
For the property and revenues of the Church, which have in the
meantime been distributed among heretics and have passed through
many hands already, cannot be recovered in any other way. They

* Reusch, Beitrage : Zeitschrift fur Kirchengeschichte (1894), Vol. II,, p. 268.

Politics and Confessors

149

[the Jesuits] believe that only the arms of Spain may be used to
bring about this event. They [the Jesuits], no matter whether from
Rome or anywhere else, come to these parts with this idea, which
has been firmly impressed upon them by their Superiors.”*

Perhaps Malvasia was thinking of an event which
caused this Jesuit principle to be made known a decade
earlier. In September, 1584, the vessel in which the
Jesuit Creighton was going to Scotland, furnished with
secret instructions, was captured by the English, and
Creighton taken to the Tower of London. On his capture
he tore up a document, and tried to throw the pieces into
the sea. They were collected again, and the Catholic
priest, Thomas Francis Knox, member of the Oratorian
Congregation founded by St. Philip Neri, and thus a
trustworthy witness, published this interesting document
for the first time a few years ago in his Records of
English Catholics. It is sufficient to quote the following
from a number of things enumerated which Creighton is
to accomplish :

“ Lastelie and especially to depose her Matie [Queen Elizabeth]
and set up the Scottish Queene [Mary Stuart], which indeede is
the scope and white whereto all this practise dothe level.”f

In the confessions made by Creighton in the Tower,
and also published literally by Knox, the “ aim and end,”
and the means to attain them, are very plainly expressed.
Pope Gregory XIII., Philip II. of Spain, and the Duke of
Guise are mentioned, with the number of troops to be
furnished by each, as chief promoters of the “ religious ”
scheme. There was even an exact estimate among the
papers of the “ non-political ” Jesuit as to the number
of soldiers required for the conquest of England. Since
1581 or 1582 the Jesuit Parsons had been in close touch

* Bellesheim, Geschichte der Kathol. Kirche in Schottland (Mayence, 1883),
II., 466.

t Thomas Francis Knox, Records of English Catholics , II., p. 426 et seq .

150 Fourteen Years a Jesuit

with the Duke of Guise, who in his turn was completely
in the hands of the French Jesuit Matthieu. Guise was
one of the worst political intriguers of his time, and tried
to promote in every way the deposition of Queen Elizabeth
of England and the raising of Mary Stuart to the English
throne. In this endeavour, supported above all by
Philip II. of Spain, which also aimed at the assassination
of the odious “ heretic,”* Guise was eagerly helped by the
two above-mentioned Jesuits. Especially Parsons pursued
the cause most zealously with Philip II., whose confidence
he had gained.

There is no direct proof that Parsons and his French
brother-member Matthieu promoted the murder-plot. But
there is a very suspicious passage in a letter of Parsons
to his General, Acquaviva, dated Rouen, September the
26th, 1581, in which he strongly advocates Mary Stuart’s
rights to the throne and then, speaking of Elizabeth, uses
the words : “ When she who now reigns is destroyed :
Extincta ista quae nunc regnat. ”f

An indirect and convincing proof of Parsons’ knowledge
and approval of the murder-plot is the fact that its chief
promoters, the Duke of Guise, Philip II. of Spain, the
Papal Nuncio in Paris, and the Cardinal Secretary of State
in Rome, were Parsons’ confidants, so that it would have
been a matter of impossibility for the Jesuit going to and
fro and mediating between these persons to have remained
ignorant of a plot which had been hatching for years.

A sidelight on the political activity of the Jesuits is
thrown by the report of Mendoza, the ambassador of
Philip II. to the King, saying that : The Jesuit Creighton
had promised the Duke of Lennox 15,000 men for the
war in Scotland. £ Mendoza adds, ho-wever, that Creighton

* Cf. my work, Das Papsttum , etc., 201-204.

■j* Taunton gives the most important part of this interesting and wholly political
letter, pp. 89, 90.

{ S.S.P. (Simancas), III., No. 255. Taunton, p. 97.

Politics and Confessors

151

might have made the promise “ entirely on his own
initiative,” which is all the more suggestive of the vast
“ religious ” activity of the Jesuits.

Under the pseudonym of Richard Melino, the Jesuit
Parsons was sent to Rome in 1583, with secret instructions
by the Duke of Guise, in order to induce the Pope to give
money for the enterprise against England ; troops were to
land in several ports, and the English Catholics were to
unite with them.*

Parsonsf is also the author of two political pamphlets
which, under the cloak of religion, demand the dethrone-
ment of Elizabeth : “ An Admonition to the Nobility and
the People of England and Ireland concerning the present
wars made for the execution of his Holiness’ sentence
[Deposition by the Pope of Elizabeth] by the high and
mighty Catholic King of Spain,” and “ A Declaration
of the Sentence of Deposition of Elizabeth, the Usurper
and Pretended Queen of England.” Like a true Jesuit,
Parsons tries to pretend that his friend, the subsequent
Cardinal Allen, was the author of these pamphlets.

The Catholic priest Taunton sums up Parsons’ highly
treasonable plots in these words :

“ The party to which Parsons attached himself had given
themselves wholly to furthering the Spanish King’s schemes, and
the Jesuit became one of the most earnest workers. Fortunately,
among the Spanish State papers of the period there has been pre-
served a document which puts Parsons’ position in a perfectly
clear light. On 18th of March, 1587, he produced a paper entitled
‘ Considerations why it is desirable to carry through the enterprise
of England before discussing the succession to the Throne of that

* Teulet, Relations politiques avec la France et VEspagne , V., 308.

■f So as not to be disturbed in his political activity Parsons used the following
pseudonyms : Robert, Perino, Ralph, Stefano Cornelio, Ottaviano Inghelberto,
Richard Melino, Marco, Mercante, Rowland Cabel, John Howlett, Redman
Giacomo Creletto, Signor Hamiano, Eusebius. (Taunton, History of the Jesuits
in England , London, 1901), p. 48 (2).

152

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

country, claimed by His Majesty ’ ; and the document is of suffi-
cient value to be quoted in extenso , for it shows Parsons, who as a
Jesuit was supposed to be particularly devoted to the Pope’s
interest, engaged in deceiving both him and the unfortunate English
Catholics in the interests of the King of Spain.”*

Taunton copies the document in extenso. The Jesuit
coolly discusses Philip II. ’s prospects after the strongholds
of England and Scotland had fallen into his hands, and he
calmly takes the death of Mary Stuart into his political
and military calculations. Of himself Parsons speaks in
the document only as Richard Melino, one of the many
pseudonyms under which he concealed his political activity.
In 1593 Parsons went to Spain to the court of Philip II.,
and there continued his intrigues with great zeal. In
the following year, 1594, appeared the worst of his political
writings — of course, again without his name — “ Conference
on the next Succession to the Crown,” which was so
hostile to Elizabeth that its mere possession was declared
high treason by Act of Parliament. For a long time the
Jesuit Order tried to deny the authorship of Parsons,
but it is undoubtedly his work.f

During his residence in Spain Parsons issued another
political treatise : “ Principal Points to facilitate the

English Enterprise.” In this, after proposing that “ the
English exiles in Flanders should make constant raids,
summer and winter, on the English coast . . .” he says:

“ Finally, the great point which ought to be considered first
is to obtain very good information from England of everything that
is being done or said by the enemy. ... An attempt may now
be made to amend matters, as Father Henry Garnet, Provincial
of the Jesuits, writes that trustworthy men may be obtained in
London who will get their information at the fountain-head in the
Council, and they themselves will provide correspondents in the

* Taunton, p. 110.

t Compare Historia Socidatis Jesu , by the Jesuit Jouvency, p. 138.

Politics and Confessors 153

principal ports, who will keep advising as to the warlike prepara-
tions. 55 *

Parsons’ political and warlike intrigues are also evident
in a report of the Spanish Council of State to King
Philip II. , dated July 11, 1600:

46 The Queen of England will not live long, and the English
Catholics beg your Majesty to declare yourself in the matter of
the succession. . . . Your Majesty's decision may be conveyed
in confidence to the Arch-priest and General of the Jesuits in
England, so that it may be published at the proper time. . . . The
answer to be given to Father Parsons may also be left to the Duke
[of Sessa, ambassador in Borne]. We here are of opinion that
Parsons may be told, as was before resolved, that your Majesty
would nominate a Catholic sovereign as the successor of Queen
Elizabeth. 5 5 f

Under James II. of England (1685-88) the Jesuit
Order exercised an almost unlimited influence. Among
the tools of the Order were the King’s confessor, the Jesuit
Warner, who was also Provincial of the Jesuits in England,
and above all James’s favourite, the Jesuit Edward Petre.
Of him Macaulay says : “Of all the evil counsellors who
had access to the Royal ear, he bore perhaps the largest
share in the ruin of the House of Stuart.”

To avoid entering into too great detail about the
Jesuit Petre, I will only quote some extracts from the
reports of the Tuscan Ambassador in London, Terriesi,
quoted by Taunton from MSS. in the British Museum :

44 Writing to the Grand Duke (22nd July, 1686) he says : 4 Let
your Highness prepare to hear continually fresh news of this country
both as to its temporal and spiritual affairs ; for the King seems
determined to push forward in matters of religion as far as he can.
And the Jesuit Petre, who governs him, is the man to force him to
extremes without a thought as to the consequences. He says
* Taunton, pp. 448, 449.

f Ibid p. 276, from Cal. S.S.P. (Simancas), IV., 665.

154 Fourteen Years a Jesuit

plainly that Protestants believe ‘ that the Jesuits are at present the
primurn mobile of the government.’ ”

“ Writing 30th December, 1686, he says : ‘ The Jesuit Father
Petre rules His Majesty’s mind more than ever. . .

“ Writing 15th August, 1687, Terriesi says : ‘ The report they
[the people] circulate, ascribing all the trouble to the Jesuits’
counsel, by which they say His Majesty is completely governed,
is most intolerable to the King. Yet I believe it in a great measure
to be a calumny ; still, as His Majesty has the Jesuits so constantly
with him, it causes suspicions, which will be worse if Father Petre
becomes Cardinal, as it is said the King certainly wishes. . .

The Jesuit Petre attained to the height of his political
activity on November the 11th, 1687, when James II.
made him a member of the Privy Council. As Privy
Councillor Petre took an oath of allegiance, which would
naturally suggest some scruples from a Catholic point of
view.} But that is where the use of the Jesuit maxim,
“ The end sanctifies the means,” would come in.

Petre accepted his political office by express permission
of the Provincial of the English Province, the Jesuit
Keynes, and with the silent consent at any rate of General
Gonzalez himself. A letter, dated January 8th, 1688,
from the General to the English Provincial does certainly
express “ surprise ” that Petre should have been allowed
by the Provincial to accept an office “ implying inter-
ference with matters forbidden by the statutes of the
Order,” but it does not contain a word of blame, let alone
a command to relinquish the office.} The letter ends
with an assurance that the General would consult his
assistants on the matter. As Petre retained his office
undisturbed even after this consultation, it may be con-
cluded that it ended in approval of Petre’s political office.
This conclusion is all the more justified as, if there had

* Taunton, pp. 448, 449.

f Cf. Michaud: Louis XIV . et Innocent XI. (Paris, 1882), 2, 113, 118.

J Cretineau-Joly, Ilistorie de la Compagnie de Jems , 3rd edition, 4, 148.

Politics and Confessors

i55

been the slightest sign of disapproval, the Jesuit authors
would certainly have pointed it out. But they have
maintained a profound silence.

Taunton concludes his account of the Jesuit Petre
with these trenchant words :

“ It is the custom to speak sternly of Petre’s foolhardy conduct,
and to accuse him of ambition. I think historians have not, as a
rule, understood the full position of the case. Petre has been made
the scapegoat for others. I do not wish to extenuate his respon-
sibility for the catastrophe ; but I do think the chief blame rests
on other shoulders. If he were free from ambition, whoThen were
the ambitious men ? Petre, like a good Jesuit, was in the hands
of his superiors perinde ac cadaver. It was therefore the superiors
of the Society who were the ambitious men. They and they alone
are primarily guilty of the fall of the Stuarts. Hitherto they have
escaped, while Petre has borne the opprobrium. The General, the
Provincial and the Confessor are the real culprits. If, as we know,
from a letter dated 3rd March, 1688, the Provincial had, without
the leave of the General, allowed Petre to accept the office of Privy
Councillor, still the General tolerated it. Considering that they
knew all about the man, and yet left him in this position ; con-
sidering that they allowed him to take the oath and become a
Privy Councillor, who can now say that they were not the ambitious
men ? The libido dominandi eats into a Society as well as into
persons, and more easily where the individual gives up all personal
ambition and makes the Society his all in all. 5 ’*

The historians of the Order do not speak of Petre and
his political doings unless absolutely obliged to do so.
They mostly prefer to ignore the existence of a Jesuit
Petre ; that is to say, they pass him over in absolute
silence. In modern times the Jesuit Duhr is conspicuous
for such silence. In his voluminous work of 975 pages,
Jesuitenfabeln , published in a fourth edition in 1904,
Petre is only mentioned once in a superficial remark
(p. 674), though thirty pages are devoted to the court

* Taunton, pp. 4G0, 461.

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

156

confessors of the Order and their doings, but Petre does
not exist for him.

This silence of Duhr’s is all the more stri ki ng,
considering that eighteen years before (1886-87), in the
Zeitschrift fur Katholische Theologie, he attempted the
defence of Petre in long articles. And in 1904 not a word
of such defence, not even a reference to it. Duhr must
have had a feeling that it would be best not to reopen the
topic of Petre.

From Duhr’s defence of 1886-87 we may report as
curiously characteristic that it is almost exclusively
restricted to refuting the reproach of Petre’s having
aspired ambitiously to the dignity of a cardinal ; this was
impossible, he asserts, since Petre, as a professed member
of the Society of Jesus, had taken a vow not to aspire after
such dignities. Duhr ignores almost completely the far
more serious reproach of political activity, also forbidden
by the Constitutions of the Order, and seals his very
extensive defence of his fellow-Jesuit Petre with this
assertion :

“ There are no facts nor authentic, irrefutable conclusions to
justify the accusation brought against the Jesuit Petre. But if
incontestable proof should be brought against Father Petre, there
would be absolutely no reason why we should hesitate to recognise
it, for it would be no more reasonable to reproach an Order of the
Catholic Church for having one wicked member than the company
of the Apostles on account of one Judas. In any case, truth must
prevail.”*

That is Duhr all over, or rather the Jesuit spirit. The
facts, that for years Petre exercised unlimited political
influence, that he officially held a political post involving
work contrary to the statutes of the Order, as even the
General was obliged to confess ; these facts, and authentic,
irrefutable conclusions drawn from them, exist. And yet

* Zeitschrift fur Kathol . Theologie , Jahrgang , 1887, p. 232.

Politics and Confessors

i57

he clamours for facts to justify the accusations. Jesuit
and ultramontane authors in general know their public.

The comparison between the Order of the Jesuits and
the company of the Apostles, among whom there had also
been a Judas, is also characteristic. There we have,
first of all, the genuine Jesuit arrogance : The company of
the Apostles = the Order of the Jesuits. Well, why not ?
The Order of the Jesuits is the Society of Jesus. But
then there is a suggestion of confession and resignation in
the reference to Judas ; after all, the Jesuit Petre may
possibly have been a Judas. How strange, then, that
the Superiors of the Order always gave this Judas the
highest praise and entrusted him, even after he had played
his political, his “ Judas ” part in England, up to his
death in 1699, with the most important offices, as Duhr
himself reports ! * In this way the likeness to Judas
extends really to the Superiors of the Order, and the
above-quoted opinion of Taunton is thus confirmed.

Seeing the numerous ways — and there will be more
still — in which Duhr’s truth has been unmasked, his
emphatic word in conclusion : “In any case the truth
must prevail,” need hardly be discussed.

After all, Cretineau-Joly is more honest than the
Jesuit Duhr. This is what he says about Petre and
the Order’s toleration of the latter’s position of political
power :

“ Petre took a position contrary to the statutes of
Saint Ignatius, and the rest of the Jesuits raised no
objection, or else, which is very improbable, the document
was lost.”!

It is true that the Jesuits raised no objections, but they
tried to make up for this in another way. Their sixteenth
General Congregation in 1730, when Petre’s political

* Zeitschrift fur Kathol. Theologie , Jahrgang , 188G, p. 682.
f Cretineau-Joly, Ilistoire de la Compagnie de Jesus, p. 172.

158 Fourteen Years a Jesuit

activity was at an end, issued a decree, the 26th, which
says :

“ If Jesuits are claimed for political work by any
sovereign, they must declare that their Constitutions
forbid their interference in such matters.”*

Thus the Order had saved its principles in the case of
Petre, and had officially disapproved of a practice it had
known and tolerated. The Order would, if necessary,
save appearances.

A pendant to the Jesuit Petre is found in the seventeenth
century in the Minister of State and Jesuit, Eberhard
Nidhard, in Spain, characterised tersely by the Ultra-
montane Historisch-'politische Blatter (surely an unimpeach-
able source) as : “ Soldier, Jesuit, Professor of Philosophy,
Confessor and Preceptor at the Viennese Court, Father
Confessor to the Queen of Spain, Spanish Minister of
State, Inquisitor- General, Spanish Ambassador in Rome,
Archbishop, Cardinal — that is, in brief, the biography of
the Austrian Jesuit Eberhard Nidhard.”f

The Venetian Ambassador at the Court of Madrid,
Marino Zorzi, states in a report to the Signoria, of April,
1667, that Nidhard “ ruled the Spanish Monarchy.”!

The fact that the Jesuits took an active part and were
a moving force in the political and military troubles of
the Thirty Years’ War hardly requires to be proved.
Gfrorer says :

“ After the Jesuits had fully established themselves under the
two childishly weak successors of the Emperor Maximilian II., and
had, as it were, become masters of the House [of Austria], they
carried forward openly their great political schemes. It was no
longer a question of merely winning a few provinces by cunning,
but of subjugating by force of arms the whole of Germany and,

* Inst. S.J., I., 397.

f Historisch-'politische Blatter , vol. 98, p. 139.

J From the Reports of the Embassy, ibid., p. 143.

Politics and Confessors

i59

through Germany, Protestant Europe, anti of suppressing the
Reformation. They intended to bring about an enormous revolu-
tion. If the Jesuits themselves and their ambitions are not merely
to be taken as products of the period, the Thirty Years’ War is
the work of their Order. The princes and kings who fought for
the Catholic cause in this terrible struggle played the parts assigned
to them by the Jesuits. . . . The most important part in this
far-seeing plan was reserved for the Imperial House. Unconditional
satisfaction of their lust of power was the bait thrown by the Jesuits
to the House of Habsburg. These princes were led to imagine
Germany at their feet . . . and were flattered in the ancient
claims of this dynasty to rule the universe, which had been revived
since the union of the Spanish and Austrian inheritance in one
House. But first the Jesuits had to procure an emperor suitable
to their plans, for what was to be done with men like the Emperor
Rudolf II., like Matthias ? They found him in the person of
Ferdinand II. . . . The establishment of a military force inde-
pendent of the Emperor, under the command of the Duke of Bavaria,
alongside of the imperial sovereign, was not merely a natural result,
but rather the work of a profound, far-seeing policy. Because
Wallenstein’s gigantic genius tore this fabric to pieces, and tried
to imprint on the Thirty Years’ War a purely imperial character,
he was bound to fall. That artful calling into the ranks of the
Bavarians and the fall of the Duke of Friedland were the work
of the Jesuits.”*

This general opinion is confirmed by many a fact
taken from the history of the Order. On the 19th of
June, 1618, the Jesuit Rumer, Rector of the Jesuit College
at Passau, wrote a letter to the Jesuit Lamormaini, Rector
of the Jesuit College at Graz (who soon after became
Father Confessor to the Emperor Ferdinand II.), which
gives proof positive of the activity of the Jesuits in urging
on the war :

“ I hear that an army is being raised for your Imperial Majesty
against the Bohemians. If this matter should lead to war, I may

* Gfrorer, Geschicliic Gustav Adolfs (Stuttgart, 1837), p. 339.

160 Fourteen Years a Jesuit

hope for good results soon. But if it leads to concord, I fear we
shall be left out, as we were at Venice. The Estates will certainly
not accept us unless obliged to it by force. . . . There has never
been a better opportunity for depriving the Bohemians of all privi-
leges injurious to religion and the Royal charter than now.”*

The Jesuits of Munster were also eagerly devoted to
politics. Fathers Schiicking, Corler and Mulmann were
specially prominent.

In the garden belonging to the House of the Order
the Catholic ambassadors held their preliminary meetings.
During his sojourn in Munster, one of the most distin-
guished among them, Gaspar de Bracamonte y Guzman,
Count of Penaranda, the principal Spanish ambassador,
built for himself in the neighbourhood of the college a
house which he presented to the Fathers on his departure
in 1648. ... In spite of their rigid principles the Fathers
managed to get on very well with the non-Catholic states-
men also : “ suaviter in modo, fortiter in re.”f

Jacob Balde, the famous Jesuit composer of odes,
entered at the same time from Munich into political
relations with the French ambassador Avaux, at Munster.
These he immortalised by dedicating the Ninth Book of his
Silvae Lyricae to the representative of France 4

One of the most interesting proofs § of the active share
of the Jesuit Order in the Thirty Years’ War is the following
fact, drawn from the depth of the State Archives of Munich
after a hundred and sixty years :

From an official estimate of January, 1729, made by the
Provincial Procurator of the Upper German Province of the
Order of the Jesuits, Father Bissel, it appears that at the

* Apologia oder Entschiddigungsschrijt auss was fur unvermeidlichen TJrsachen
alle drey Stande des loblichen Konigreichs Boehaimb sub utraque ein Defensionwerk
anstellen mussen (Prague 1618), pp. 81, 394.

f Steinberger, p. 54. J Ibid., p. 48 et seq.

§ I shall bring forward other proofs later, in discussing the activity of Jesuit
confessors of princes.

Politics and Confessors

161

time of the Thirty Years’ War the Order advanced large
sums to the Catholic League :*

The German Province had lent 262,208 guldens, the
interest on which in 1729 amounted to 302,271 guldens
18 kreuzers ; the College at Liege 200,000 guldens, for
which in 1729 interest of 130,833 guldens 9 kreuzers
was due ; the Cologne College 29,250 guldens for which
the interest in 1729 amounted to 30,000 guldens. The
sum total of capital advanced plus interest amounted
accordingly to 954,562 guldens 27 kreuzers. To his
estimate the Jesuit Bissel adds this remark :

“ I shall not reveal this to others [of the Order], so
that our people may not tell strangers. For this might
bring mischief and ruin on our establishments.”

Thus the estimate was strictly private and only meant
for the Superiors. The Jesuit Duhr, trying to hide the
fact that the Jesuits had anything to do with the Thirty
Years’ War, though referring to the Catholic League, of
course says nothing of the Order’s great money loans to
the League.f

On the relations of the Jesuits to the French League
at the end of the sixteenth century the Jesuit Prat, who
characterises the League as a revolutionary movement,
admits :

“ The Society of Jesus supplied it [the League] at first with a.
few eager partisans, while other members were on the royal and
legal side. But eventually, led by the directions of their General
[Acquaviva] and by the example of Sixtus V., they kept in the
background. . . . Henry III. . . . demanded the presence of
Father Auger at his court, and that all the members of his Order
should openly range themselves on the Royal side. Being informed
of the complaints and wishes of the King, Claudius Acquaviva at
first proceeded to treat with the French ambassador in Rome.

* J. Friedrich, Beitrdge , p. 16. Here is also the documentary evidence from
the Jesuit Papers in the State Archives of Munich,
t Jesuitenfabdn , pp. 151, 16L

162 Fourteen Years a Jesuit

Then he entrusted Father Maggio with the task of explaining to
Henry III. the reasons for the measures [taken by the Order]
of which the King had complained.”*

So the amusing anecdote which Saint-Simon tells of
the 1692 campaign is probably no mere invention.*}*

“ 11 aniva une chose a Namur , apres sa prise , qui fit
du bruit . . . . On visita tout avec exactitude . . .
Lorsque , dans une derniere visite apres la prise du chateau ,
on la voulut faire chez les J esuites, Us ouvrirent, toute en
marquant toutefois leur surprise , et quelque chose de plus ,
de ce qu'on ne s'en fioit pas a leur temoignage . Mais en
fouillant partout oil Us ne s' attendaient pas , on trouva lews
souterrains pleins de poudre dont Us s' etoient bien gardes de
parler : ce qu'ils pretendoient faire est demeure incertain

The participation of the Jesuits in the revolution in
Portugal in the middle of the seventeenth century, through
which John IV. of the House of Braganza came to the
throne, has been so clearly proved that even the Jesuit
Bavignan could not but admit it :

“ It was the only time, so far as I know, that the Religious of
the Society took part in a political revolution that overthrew one
throne in order to put another in its place.” ||

Bavignan tries to extenuate the awkwardness of the

* Recherches historiques et critiques sur la Compagnie de Jesus en France du
temps du P. Coton , 1564-1626 (Lyon, 1876), I., 65 et seq.

f Saint-Simon is very inconvenient to the Jesuits as a witness. The Jesuit
Dulir disposes of him for his readers with the following words : “ Lavallee [editor
of Madame de Maintenon’s Letters] charges the Memoirs of the Due de Saint-Simon,
which have been exploited in an anti-Jesuit manner, with blind hatred and
deliberate un truthfulness.” This is a piece of genuine Jesuitical misrepresentation.
Lavallee does not dream of discrediting Saint-Simon’s Memoirs as a whole ; indeed
he constantly refers to the Memoirs in explanation of passages in Madame de
Maintenon’s Letters. In the passage quoted (inaccurately, too) by Duhr, Lavallee
speaks exclusively of Saint-Simon’s antipathy for Louis XIV. and Madame de
Maintenon, without saying a word against the general trustworthiness of the
Memoirs.

J Memoires (Paris, 1873), I., 12.

|j De V Existence et de Vlnstitut des J esuites (Paris, 1855), p. 238.

Politics and Confessors

163

fact by saying that the Portuguese Jesuits had acted here
rather as Portuguese than as Jesuits, an evasion which
might serve in similar cases for all countries in which
Jesuits live and support thrones. Georgel, Secretary of
the French Embassy in Vienna, tells us how great was the
general influence of the Jesuits in Portugal :

“ At court they were not only directors of conscience to the
Princes and Princesses of the Royal Family, but the King and his
Ministers consulted them on affairs of importance. In the govern-
ment of State or Church no office was bestowed without their
approval or influence, so that the high clergy, the aristocracy, and
the people vied with each other for their mediation and favour.”*

Even Pombal had to bow at least once to the prepon-
derant influence of the Jesuits. At one time he seems to
have planned marrying the Princess de Beira to the Duke
of Cumberland, and thus uniting Portugal to England.
Surely a political enterprise ! Who was it that thwarted
this plan successfully ? The Jesuit Order. Thus reports
Marechal de Belle-Isle, f and Cretineau-Joly is bound to
confirm him.

I have mentioned already the fact and the reason w T hy
the Jesuits have been less prominent politically since the
restoration of their Order than formerly. But even during
the comparatively short period of not quite a hundred
years numerous political intrigues and actions were set on
foot by the Order.

In the diary of Manning (afterwards Cardinal), written
during his second stay in Rome (after his secession to the
Church of Rome), November, 1847, to May, 1848, the
following passage, dated December 5th, 1847, occurs :

“ Broechi told me that the Jesuits are able and excellent in
their duties as priests, but that their politics are most mischievous ;

* Me moires pour servir a I’Histoire des Evenernerds de la Fin du 18 Siecle
Paris, 1817), 1, 16.

f Testament 'politique , p. 108, and Cretineau-Joly, 5, 176.

164 Fourteen Years a Jesuit

that if a collision should come with the people the effect would be
terrible ; that they stick to the aristocracy, e.g. to the Dorias,
the Princess being a Frenchwoman ; that no day passes but they
are there. The people call them Oscuri, Oscurantisti.”*

In 1866 and 1870-71 I was too young to be able to
judge of the political activity of the Order in those stirring
times, but the events at Feldkirch and in my family circle,
which, as I have already shown, was completely under
Jesuit dominion, prove the strong political partisanship of
the Order for Austria and France. The extensive influence
of the Order and its traditional habit of political intrigue
justify the conclusion that its anti-Prussian and anti-
German sentiments may have led to actions, or in any
case to desires.

But I was old enough to judge of subsequent events.

In 1883-87, when I was studying theology as a
Jesuit scholastic at Ditton Hall, in England, I was sent
several times for a short stay to the Continent for various
purposes of no special interest. During one of these
journeys (I forget in what year) I spent the night in the
Jesuit College at Canterbury, where some of the Jesuits
exiled from France had settled. The Rector was the
renowned Jesuit du Lac. He treated me with great
candour, and told me with many details, which I have
forgotten, how zealously he had been working in France
for General Boulanger ; that he had collected large sums
of money for the “ Deliverer of France ” from the Legitimist
nobility ; “ la sale et impie Republique ” would have to be
overthrown by Boulanger, whom God (!) had elected, and
“ le drapeau blanc royal ” hoisted once more. These words
sounded strange in my ears from the lips of so responsible
a person. I should have thought them stranger still if
I had known who and what le brave General was (but I
never caught sight of a newspaper), and that the qualifying

* Purcell, Life of Cardinal Manning (London, 1895), I., p. 364.

Politics and Confessors 165

epithets “ sale ” and “ impie ” used by du Lac of the
Republic applied particularly well to Boulanger.

There was a significant epilogue to this conversation
at Canterbury. In a letter to General Anderledy, well
known to me from my youth, I felt bound to report to
him the political activity of the J esuit du Lac ; other
matters too were dealt with in this letter. Anderledy
replied to all, omitting only what concerned du Lac and
Boulanger. Later I understood the reason for this
omission. The General of the Order, who may also have
placed his hopes on Boulanger, did not wish to interfere
with du Lac’s political doings.

Ever since the establishment of the Centre Party in
Germany it has always been closely connected with the
Jesuit Order. Theologians of the German Province were
often consulted by parliamentary members of the Centre.
The leader of the Centre, Lieber, was a frequent guest
in the German Jesuit Colleges on the Dutch frontier
(Exaeten, Wynandsrade, Blyenbeck). The Provincial,
Jacob Ratgeb, used to go to Hanover for important con-
sultations with Windthorst. Once he returned in a state
of great annoyance, and in his vexation at Windthorst’s
“ prudence ” he allowed these words to escape him : “ If
Windthorst is not willing, we shall go ahead without him.”
I never learnt to what the cunning Guelph’s unwillingness
may have referred. In 1889, at Windthorst’s desire, and
under the pretext of study and pastorate, two Jesuits
were sent to Berlin for permanent residence. I was one
of the two, and the other was Jacob Fall, formerly Rector
of Feldkirch, and chief editor of Stimmen aus Maria-
Laach. I shall recur again to my stay in Berlin. Here,
in connection with politics, I can only say that Windthorst
and the other Centre leaders made us very welcome. In
the lobby of the (old) parliamentary buildings I had a long
conversation with Windthorst, in which he said emphatic-

1 66

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

ally that the question of the return of the Jesuits, and of
the territorial independence of the Pope (the Papal States)
must always remain in the foreground. Later on, up to
Windthorst’s death, another Jesuit, Victor Frins, was his
constant adviser in Berlin. In the discussions on the new
civil code (Biirgerliclies Gesetzbucli) the celebrated Jesuit
Lehmkuhl played a great part as an irspirer of the Centre
Party. August Reichensperger also held lively intercourse
with the German Jesuits. His name recalls to me a serious
yet diverting “ political ” occurrence.

In the summer of 1882 August Reichensperger visited
the Jesuit College at Blyenbeck. In his honour an open-
air picnic was held. Piitz, the Rector, made a speech
on the guest of the day, in which he mentioned the
exile of the Jesuits from Germany, and the hope of their
speedy return with the aid of the Centre Party and its
glorious leader Reichensperger. August Reichensperger
answered very pleasantly, but with reference to the exile
said, almost literally : “ Those who plunge into politics
as deeply as the Jesuit Order must put up with the
occasional political consequences of the plunge.” Tableau !
The faces of the surrounding fathers (for we scholastics
stood apart) grew long and aghast at this candour. On the
very same evening the Rector joined us young Jesuits
during recreation, and tried to blot out the impression
made by Reichensperger’s words. He said Reichensperger
had been brought up on Gallo-Josephinian ideas, and a
little youthful infection was still in him, and that was why
he repeated things he had heard in former days ; but the
Jesuits had never interfered in politics.

After the expulsion of the Jesuit Order from Germany,
the German Province of the Order settled not only in
Holland and England, but also in Denmark. Very soon the
Jesuits succeeded in converting the widow of the Danish
multi-millionaire and press magnate, Berling, proprietor

Politics and Confessors

167

of the great Copenhagen paper Berlingske Tidende, to
Catholicism. With this lady’s money the Jesuit College at
Ordrupshoj, near Copenhagen, was built, being in the North
what Feldkirch is in the South. It is naturally impossible
to ascertain how far the Jesuit influence extended to the
Berlingske Tidende, and through it to politics.

The Catholic Princess Waldemar of Denmark, daughter
of the Duke of Chartres, was also in the hands of the
German Jesuits of Copenhagen and Ordrupshoj. Her
intense hatred of Germans may doubtless be ascribed to
Jesuit influence, apart from her French descent. It is
well known that it was Princess Waldemar of Denmark who,
in 1887 , manipulated matters so as to place the forged
documents against Bismarck in the hands of the Tsar
Alexander III. Considering the simultaneous political
activity of the French Jesuit du Lac, and the influence
of the “ German ” Jesuits in Copenhagen on the French
Princess Waldemar of Denmark, it is not a very romantic
supposition to connect the origin of the forged anti-
Bismarck documents, which almost caused a war, with
the Jesuit Order.

An interesting and instructive medley of the political
proceedings of the Jesuit Order is spread before us,
sufficient to mark the striking contrast between Jesuit
words and deeds in this important point also. It only
remains to show the road by which the Order is enabled
to enter the political arena in the most effective and, at
the same time, the least conspicuous manner. That road
is confession. For centuries the Jesuit Order supplied
nearly all Catholic princes and politically influential men
with confessors. Their pastoral work presents vistas of
quite enormous activity, comprising in their motley but
systematic variety the whole of Europe.

In the beginning of the eighteenth century the Duke
of Saint-Simon writes :

i68

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

“ Les J esuites maitres des corns far le confessional de
presque tous les rois et de tons les souverains catholiques . . .
terribles par la politique la plus raffinee, la plus profonde,
la plus superieure a toute autre consideration que leur
domination, soutenue par un gouvernement dont la Monarchie,
V autorite, les degres, les ressorts, le secret, Vuniformite dans
les vues, et la multiplicity dans les moyens en sont Vame

But the Jesuits do not admit Saint-Simon’s testimony.
Well ! a few decades later it was borne out by a man
whom they could hardly set aside as a Jesuit-hater or
misinformed. The Jesuit Cordara admits in his Memoirs :

“ Nearly all kings and sovereigns of Europe had only
Jesuits as directors of their conscience, so that the whole
of Europe appeared to be governed by Jesuits only : reges
ac principes prope omnes Europae solis Jesuitis utebantur
conscientiae arbitris, ut soli jam Jesuitae tota dominari
viderentur Europa .”f

Therefore, Habemus confitentem reum. The Order of
the Jesuits governing Europe through its confessors of
sovereigns stands here convicted before us : the official
Constitutions forbid the acceptance of the office of confessor
of a sovereign. The fortieth decree of the second General
Congregation of 1565 runs thus :

“ Since it was proposed to appoint for the illustrious Cardinal
of Augsburg [Otto von Truchsess] a theologian of our Society to
be his father confessor and also join his court, the Congregation
has decided not to appoint any of our people either to a sovereign
or any other lord of the Church or State, to attend his court or
reside there in order to fulfil the office of confessor, theologian,
or any other office, except for the very short period of one or two
months.

Is this strict prohibition meant to refer back to the

* Memoires (Paris, 1873), 7, 132 et seq.

f Bollinger, Beitrage , 3, 72.

} Inst. S.J. , I., 188.

Politics and Confessors

169

founder of the Order himself, Ignatius Loyola, who,
scarcely twenty years before, by virtue of holy obedience,
en virtud de santa obediencia, appointed Fathers Le Jay,
Pollanco and Pelletier as confessors to the Dukes Hercules
of Ferrara and Cosimo de Medici, and had placed Fathers
Gonzalez and Miron as confessors at the disposal of the
King of Portugal ? * Hardly ! This decree, too, is nothing
but a paper to save appearances prudently produced by
the Order, to be shown in case of necessity and soothe
the minds of the public. The calculated deceit of the
strict prohibition is almost proved by the action of the
fifth General of the Order, the Neapolitan Claudius
Acquaviva.

Not very long after the decree was issued, in 1602,
Acquaviva drew up an Ordinance in which he gives
precise instructions for confessors of sovereigns, and passes
over the previous “ strict prohibition ” with the truly
Jesuitical phrase of : “ The greater glory of God.”

“ If the Society [of Jesus] can no longer escape such an office
because, for various reasons, the greater glory of our Lord God
seems to require it, then care should be taken as to the choice of
suitable persons, and the manner in which they carry out their
duties, so that the sovereign should derive benefit, the people be
edified, and the Society sustain no injury thereby.”!

Then, after apparently strict injunctions (in Notes 4-7)
that the father confessor should not engage “ in exterior
or political affairs,” and not let himself be employed as
“ censor of ministers and courtiers,” all this is again
made possible in another way in Note 8 in the shape of
an exhortation to the sovereign :

“ The sovereign should listen with equanimity and patience to
whatever his father confessor should think fit to suggest ( sugge -

* Cartas de S. Ignacio de Loyola (Madrid, 1874), I., 326 ; II., 65 ; III., 173.
t Inst. S.J., II., 225.

170 Fourteen Years a Jesuit

rendum) to him daily according to the voice of his conscience. For
as a prominent person and a sovereign is concerned, it is fitting
that the priest should be allowed to suggest what he considers
good for the greater service of God and the sovereign, and not
only with regard to such things as he might know from him [the
prince] in the character of penitent, but also with regard to those
which he might hear elsewhere ( quae hinc inde audiuntur), requiring
a remedy, for the removal of oppression, the lessening of annoyances
frequently arising from the actions of the ministers, contrary to
the wish and will of the sovereign, whose conscience may be
oppressed by the harm done, and the duty of making provision
against it.”*

So the confessor is to suggest [ suggerere ] to the sovereign
whatever his conscience may dictate to him [< quidquid
dictante sibi conscientia]. It is obvious that an opening
is thus provided for the most pronounced political influence.
Thus we see, for instance, that the Jesuit Caussin, Father
Confessor to Louis XIII. of France, wrote to General
Mutius Vitelleschi :

“ If he dissuaded the king from an alliance with the Turks, it
would not be interfering with politics ; for the question whether
an alliance with the Turks should be permitted was not a political
one, but a matter of conscience.”!

A letter from General Caraffa, of May 23rd, 1648, to
the Rector of the Jesuit College at Munster, Gottfried
Corler, cunningly points to “ conscience ” as the road by
which the official prohibition regarding interference with
politics might be evaded. This confidential letter is all
the more interesting because Caraffa refers in it to an
encyclical, published by himself, against interference with
politics :

“ . . .As regards my encyclical that our people should not
meddle with affairs of war or peace, I did not mean thereby to

* Inst. S.J., II., 226.
t Tuba Magna , II., 310.

Politics and Confessors 171

prevent our people in the confessional from directing the con-
sciences of those turning to them with doubts, but only from
dealing with such affairs outside the confessional.”*

As the Jesuit House at Munster, to which the letter
was addressed, was just then a chief hotbed of political
activity, Caraffa’s duplicity (for his letter is the essence of
duplicity) is of particular significance, and was probably
particularly effective.

We have seen already, and shall see more clearly still,
what a great part the “ conscience ” formula, introduced
by the Generals Acquaviva and Caraffa, played in the
political doings of the Order, how it is applied again and
again when Jesuit confessors of sovereigns desire to
represent their political influence as unpolitical.

See Steinberger, p. 199, for Latin text.

CHAPTER XIX

THE CRITICISM CONTINUED: COURT CONFESSORS

Acquaviva, that Machiavelli in Jesuit garb, not satisfied
with an equivocal official “ Ordinance ” destined to be
enrolled in the Constitutions of the Order, also issued a
secret Instruction for the Confessors of Sovereigns.

This secret Instruction was published by the Benedic-
tine Dudik, himself a strict Catholic, in his Archiv fur
Oesterreichische Geschichte* from the manuscripts of the
Court Library at Vienna.f It is composed through-
out in the form of questions, as Dudik expresses it,
“ as a Confession Mirror for Sovereigns.”

“ From the questions,” says Dudik, “ the purpose at
which the Jesuits aimed through their father confessors
may be clearly perceived, namely, the supremacy of the
Catholic Church, such as a Gregory, an Innocent, or a
Boniface aspired to obtain.”];

Here are some questions from the “ Instruction ” :

Whether he [the father confessor] tried skilfully to
find out himself, or through trustworthy, zealous, and wise
men, how the ministers, magistrates and judges discharged
their offices ; whether he had discreet and able men at
hand through whom, by searching the lives of citizens
( explorans ), he could inquire into ( inquirat ) the source of
their income, their expenditure, and if they had entered
into forbidden contracts ; whether he [the prince] had
hampered the Inquisition ; whether, when called on to

* Vol. 54, p. 234. t MS. Chart. Sign., 11,821.

172

% Vol. 54, p. 234.

Court Confessors

i73

execute its sentences on heretics, he had refused to do so ;
whether he had carried on an unrighteous war ; whether
he had broken his princely oaths ; whether he had dis-
obeyed the Pope and Prelates of the Church ?*

The Jesuit Order — it should be here noted — is the
only one of all the monastic Orders which has official and
secret Instructions for the Confessors of Sovereigns. I
was, therefore, more than justified in designating the
Confession of Sovereigns as an institution of the Order.

Very characteristic and significant for the fundamental
attitude of the Order towards the confession of sovereigns
is this circumstance :

The Generals Goswin Nickel (a German) and Mutius
Vitelleschi issued the following orders in official letters of
February 23rd, 1641, and November 28th, 1654, both
addressed to the Provincial of the Upper German Province :

“ When sovereigns require a Jesuit’s opinion on any subject,
the Jesuit in question is to report the matter to his Superior, who
is to lay it before several Jesuits for discussion. The resolution
formed after this consultation is supplied to the Jesuit who has
been consulted by the sovereign.”!

This Ordinance, which is in the first instance concerned
with the confessors of sovereigns, could only have the
result doubtless intended by the Generals, that it was
just the most important matters (those that required a
second opinion) which were not kept secret between

* The publication of the secret Instruction is exceedingly inconvenient to
the Jesuit Duhr. He passes over this significant document in a mere footnote,
mentioning it casually, and just where he ought to have discussed it he misleads
by hushing it up. {Die Jesuiten an den deulschen Furslenhofen dee 16 Jahrhunderte ,
Freiburg, 1910, p. 6.) In the J esuitenfabeln (4 Ed., p. 100) Duhr also displays
the same disingenuousness ; he quotes from Dudik a passage from a letter of
General Vitelleschi, in which the Imperial Father Confessor in Vienna, the Jesuit
Lamorinaini, is referred to Acquaviva’s official Ordinatio , but passes over the
secret Instruction in silence.

f From the manuscript papers of the Jesuits published by Dollinger-Reusch,
from the Archives at Munich. Moralstreitiqkeiten , I., 650.

174

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

sovereign and confessor, but came to the knowledge of
the General of the Order, and could thus be utilised by
him in his general calculations and measures.

This is clearly expressed in letters by the Jesuit Caussin,
Father Confessor of Louis XIII. of France, to General
Vitelleschi. Caussin, who appears to have been an in-
genuous man, objects to being expected to report to the
Superiors of the Order the confidences made to him by
the King, and the discussions he held with him.

“ I am reproached for not seeking advice of my Superiors on
the matters I discuss with the King. . . . But I know from
Thomas [Aquinas] that, according to natural, human and divine
right, matters of confession are to be kept secret. . . . What law
or what constitution of the Society [of Jesus] is there that bids
the Father Confessor report to his Superiors on the affairs of his
penitents ? ... Is the King’s conscience to be revealed to as
many persons as there are Consultors in our Houses ? ”*

Thus Caussin was of the opinion, and he must surely
have known, that the Ordinance of his Superiors contained
an invitation to violate the secret of the confessional.

We have already seen that the Order disregards the
secrecy of the confessional in the case of its own members.
But here the secrecy of the confessional, which according
to general theological doctrine every priest is bound to
preserve even at risk of death, is set aside on principle
by the Jesuit Order for the furtherance of its own
political ends. The Jesuit Caussin opposed the demand
of his Superiors. Other Jesuit confessors of sovereigns
behaved differently. For instance, a great deal has been
written in controversy about the betrayal of the confession
of the Empress Maria Theresa. But it appears to be an
established fact that either a genuine confession or a

* The letter is published in eztenso in Liberius Candidas t Tuba Magna , Edit. 4
(Strassburg, 1760), II., 329 et seq ., and in part in Dollinger-Reusch, I., 651.

Court Confessors

i75

strictly confidential communication made by the Empress
to him, as her spiritual director, was reported by the
Jesuit Campmuller to his Superiors in Rome. No con-
tradiction such as, for instance, that made by the Jesuit
Duhr* can affect the gist of the matter. It is positively
absurd that Duhr, in order to contradict it, refers to his
own researches in the Archives at Vienna and Simancas,
and states that there he had found nothing about a
“ betrayal of confession.” From what we know of Duhr’s
researches, we are positively compelled to disbelieve him.
But even if nothing were to be found in Vienna and
Simancas, what proof could that be in contradiction of the
fact ?

The rest of Duhr’s counterproofs are just as uncon-
vincing. They may be summed up in the silence preserved
on this matter by Arneth, Maria Theresa’s biographer, and
a statement made by him in answer to a letter from Duhr,
that in “ his researches in the Archives ” he had learnt
nothing about the matter. These assertions and purely
negative proofs are opposed by positive and permanent
testimonies.

Canon Ginzel, of Leitmeritz Cathedral, a strictly
orthodox Churchman, reports :

“ On this affair, Dr. Jacob Stern, Royal and Imperial Court
Chaplain at the time of Maria Theresa, living in retirement as
titular provost of Ivanzia at Hetzendorf, near Vienna, who had
a very extensive knowledge of current events, told the author
(in 1830) as follows : ‘ The urgent representations made by the
Bourbon Courts to Theresa on account of the suppression of the
Jesuits had not remained entirely without effect on her. . . .

Then one day the Abbot of St. Dorothea (his name I have for-
gotten) came to Theresa and handed her a paper written by her
Father Confessor, the Jesuit Campmiiller, containing one of her
recent confessions. Its main contents are said to have been her

J esudtenfabeln (4), pp. 40-GS.

176

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

scruples as to the recent partition of Poland. Theresa now voted
for the suppression of the Society and is supposed to have reported
to Ganganelli this violation of the seal of confession, as a reason
for not allowing the Jesuits to remain in her dominion.’ ”*

These recollections of a Court Chaplain of Maria
Theresa, told to Ginzel himself, who, as the latter points out,
“ had a very extensive knowledge of current events ” and
was, therefore, still in the enjoyment of his mental faculties,
are doubtless of great significance, not lessened by Duhr’s
derisive remarks about “ the old gentleman.”

Another remark added by Ginzel still further assists
in clearing up the point in question :

“ On the other hand, we must note that the scruples which the
august lady . . . felt with regard to the partition of Poland
were very openly expressed before all her counsellors, and if the
Father Confessor wrote down such scruples, he did not violate
the seal of confession, inasmuch as they had not been uttered in
confession only.”f

What the Jesuit Campmiiller had reported to Rome
about his Imperial penitent need not have been a confession
in the strictest sense of the word. But it was a breach of
confidence of the meanest kind if Campmul'ler passed on
what the Empress had put before him as her spiritual
director, in the shape of questions and doubts, no matter
whether she communicated similar questions and doubts
to her “ counsellors.”

Thus Campmiiller seems to have acted strictly accord-
ing to the decree of Mutius Vitelleschi, who did not literally
speak of genuine “ confessions ” either, but of “ points
requiring another opinion.” The partition of Poland may
surely have been a point that might cause Maria Theresa
to turn to her spiritual director in order to obtain his
opinion.

* Kirchenhistorische Schriften (Vienna, 1872), 2, 231.

•f Ibid.

Court Confessors

177

An equally strong proof is furnished by the testimony
of the Imperial Russian Professor and General Super-
intendent of the Lutheran Congregations at St. Petersburg,
Dr. Ignatius Fessler. Fessler is one of the most remarkable
and sincere personalities of the eighteenth and nineteenth
centuries, whose experiences and adventures are not
sufficiently known. In his interesting book, Reminis-
cences of a Seventy Years' Pilgrimage , he says :

“ The Professor at the University of Vienna, whom I venerated
most of all, and who loved me like a father, was Josephus Julianus
Monsperger, a hale old man of seventy-nine, a Jesuit formerly tertiae
professions , and consequently initiated in the secrets of the Order.
The Rector of the Professed House in Vienna had been obliged to
go on a journey, and had charged him to clear up the rectory and
to have it cleaned. A picture had then attracted his attention ;
he had taken it off the wall, in order to look at it in a better light.
Meanwhile he had noticed in the place where the picture had been
hanging a small closet which appeared to him suspicious ; he
noticed and pressed a spring, and the door flew open. Among a
mass of papers his glance fell on a case with the superscription :
‘ Confessions of the Great and Powerful . 5 He opened it, and found
Confessions of the Empress, the Archdukes, Archduchesses, several
Ministers and other persons of high rank. ... So Monsperger
frequently informed me. 55 *

The Jesuit Duhr tries to get the better of this testimony
by talking of “ romantic embroidery, 55 and by “ proving 55
that Monsperger had held no position in the Professed
House at Vienna, and that the journal of that House did
not mention a journey of the Rector’s in the year 1764.
Still, he does not dare to attack Fessler’s trustworthiness.

Voltaire also reports in a letter to the Due de Riche-
lieu, a “ betrayed confession, 55 and says that the Jesuit

* Fessler, fiiickblicke auf eine siebzigjahrige Pilgerschaft (Breslau, 1824), pp. 1G6-
168. In consequence of this discovery, Monsperger left the Order of the Jesuits
and became Professor of Oriental Languages at Vienna University.

M

i7 8 Fourteen Years a Jesuit

d’Aubanton, Confessor to Philip V. of Spain, had told the
contents of a confession of the King’s to the Duke of
Orleans, and that the Count Fuentes and the Duke of
Villa Hermosa held proofs of this.*

Unfortunately Voltaire does not give these proofs.
But the fact corresponds with the sketch of d’Aubanton
made on the strength of long acquaintance by Saint-
Simon.

We will now turn our attention to the work of individual
Jesuit confessors of sovereigns. Here also a few extracts
will have to suffice. The Jesuit Maggio, Father Confessor
of the Emperor Rudolf II., by means of a memorandum
and by verbal representations, sought to induce the
Emperor to proceed with the utmost severity against the
Protestants. It is obvious that, considering the conditions
of the time, shortly before the outbreak of the Thirty
Years’ War, this was strong and decisive interference in
politics. The Jesuit Duhr,f who takes good care not
to communicate Maggio’s documentary memoranda which
are at his disposal in the Secret Archives of the Order, does
not, of course, see anything touching politics in his fel-
low Jesuit’s action, neither does Maggio himself, who is
naive enough to utter a strong warning against inter-
ference in politics when writing to General Borgia in
March, 1571.

It is evident that the double face and even double
conscience, assumed officially a few years later by the
Jesuit confessor of sovereigns, in accordance with General
Acquaviva’s Instruction, began to manifest itself even then
in its main features.} Only a few months later this
duplicity appears distinctly in a report to Rome of the
Jesuit Emerich Forsler of the 21st of May, 1571 :

* (Euvres, Edit. Beaumarchais, 6, 79.

f Duhr, Die Jesuiten an den deutschen Fursterihofen des 16. JahrJiunderts , p. IS.

X CJ. Sacchini, S.J., Hist . Societ. Jesu ad ann, 1571, nr. 139.

Court Confessors

179

“ The relations of our Father Stephan to Archduke Charles
[Governor of Graz, son of King Ferdinand] are quite confidential ;
on the most important matters the Archduke asks and receives
his advice, and thinks so highly of him that he wished to admit
him to the public Council (publicum consilium ), when religious
matters would be discussed with the Estates of the Realm. This

I have forbidden ; he is only to help privately as much as possible,
in a prudent and discreet manner.”*

Dudik showsf that the Jesuit Lamormaini, the con-
fessor of the Emperor Ferdinand II., was the originator
of the Decree of Restitution of March 6th, 1629. Still
more interesting is his proof, that the election of Ferdinand

II .’s son as king, in August 7th, 1636, at Ratisbon, can
be traced back to the Jesuit Lamormaini. The Senate of
Hamburg wished to reward the merits of the Jesuit in
this indubitably political affair by a present of 1,000 thalers.
Lamormaini wisely declined for himself, but induced the
Senate to turn over the sum to the Jesuit Heinrich
Schachtin, who was secretly at work in Hamburg.

As principal adviser of the Emperor Lamormaini had
also a considerable share in Wallenstein’s fate. Under the
presidency of the Emperor a “ secret council ” was held
on January 24th, 1634, in Prince von Eggenberg’s house,
when the Duke of Friedland’s fate was decided. As
the Jesuit Lamormaini could not be present the Emperor
sent Bishop Anton Wolfrath to him, in order to inform
him of the resolutions and to get his opinion. “ The
Vienna Bishop,” writes the Emperor to the Jesuit, “ will
communicate to your Reverence a matter of the greatest
importance and that under the strictest seal of conscience
or confession.”!

This is in agreement with Gindely’s report about the
meeting of the College at Ratisbon, in July-August, 1630,
at which Wallenstein’s first deposition was discussed :

* Duhr, Die Jesuiten an den deutschen Fiirsterihofen , p. 25.
f P. 243 el seq. J Dudik, p. 244.

i8o

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

“ It now depended only on the opinion of two persons [for the
Electors had already decided against Wallenstein] who had the
greatest weight with the Emperor [Ferdinand II.] and whom he
considered almost more than Eggenberg, namely the Empress and
[the Jesuit] Lamormaini. . . . Lamormaini threw the whole weight
of his prestige into the balance against Waldstein.* It cannot be
doubted that he did this, not on his own initiative, but by the
instructions of the General of the Jesuits, who in his turn was only
carrying out the directions of the Pope. The Spanish Cabinet held
the opinion that the Confessor alone had clinched the matter and
that without him the Emperor would have retained his general.
Three years later and, moreover, several months before the murder
at Eger, when Lamormaini warned against Waldstein’ s plots and
requested the Spanish Ambassador at Vienna, the Marquis of
Castaneda, to call the Emperor’s attention to the danger threatening
him, Philip IV. forbade his ambassador to interfere in any way.
4 Lamormaini,’ says the letter of the Spanish King to Castaneda,
4 is the cause of the present dangerous situation ; he advised and
brought about the dismissal of the Duke of Mecklenburg [Wallen-
stein], and if he speaks to you again, you are to tell him that he
himself is the cause of all the trouble.’ ”f

A very telling document in proof of the Jesuit Larnor-
maini’s political activity is the report written with his own
hand, on September 18th, 1630, to Ferdinand II. on the
proposals which the Elector of Bavaria had made to him
(Lamormaini) on his attitude to the Winter-King. “ This
matter also concerns conscience and religion 55 : these words
conclude Lamormaini’s expositions. Besides this the
report deals with stationing of troops in Pomerania and
Silesia, and filling the posts in the highest law-courts in
Speyer and Vienna, which are reproached with dilatoriness. J
Even the Catholic historian, Steinberger, who is strongly

* The older and more correct spelling.

f Gindely, Waldstein wahrend seines ersten Generalais (Leipzig, 1886), 2, 291
ei seq. For the letter of the Spanish King Gindely quotes the Archive of Simancus ,
Philip IV. to Castaneda , dated 19th September, 1633.

J For wording of the report, see Dudik, p. 337 et seq.

Court Confessors

181

in favour of the Jesuits, says of Lamormaini and his
relation to politics :

“ At the Imperial Castle at Vienna, the well-known Father
William Germain Lamormaini exercised a pretty extensive influence
on his Imperial penitent (filius s'piritualis), Ferdinand II. The
Emperor followed the advice and judgment of his Father Confessor,
as the sheep follows the shepherd, and in order to safeguard his
conscience in every direction he initiated him into everything, even
the most insignificant trifles. As regards Father Lamormaini’s
political views, his position concerning the Mantuan succession and
in the discussions preceding the Treaty of Prague, added to his
semi-French descent [Lamormaini came from Luxemburg], seem to
justify the supposition of the Spanish statesman that he favoured
France.”*

It was universally said that Lamormaini had caused
the so-called Mantuan War of Succession. A very tortuous
letter from Lamormaini, addressed to the King of Spain
with the object of diverting the suspicion, failed in its
endeavour, f

Forty-one confidential letters from the Emperor to
the Jesuits Becanus and Lamormaini, published by Dudik, J
show in how many directions the confessors were occupied,
and within what vast limits matters were considered
“ questions of conscience.” Even on the appointment
of court-marshals and on lawsuits their opinion was
taken. But mostly it is questions of high politics which
the Emperor places before them : the state of aifairs in
Hungary, Bohemia and Silesia, the influence on certain
Electors. There are frequent cautions from the Emperor
to treat the documents sent for perusal as strictly con-
fidential. For Tilly also the Jesuit received imperial
commissions. For the Emperor’s brother, Archduke

* Die Jesuiten und die Friedensfrage in der Zeit vom Prager Frieden bis zum
Nurnberger FriedensexekulioJishau'ptrezess, 1635-1650 (Freiburg, 1906), p. 15 et scq.

t Dudik, pp. 245-248. J Pp. 256-27S.

182

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

Leopold, the Imperial Confessors undertook considerable
money transactions, etc., etc.

A truly servile dependence on the Jesuits in private
and public affairs is revealed by these letters from the
Emperor and the Archduke.

Gindely describes this dependence in detail. In one
instance, however, the influence of the Jesuits failed,
although it was brought to bear at high pressure. This
was creditable to the Emperor and a disgrace to the
Jesuit politicians.

“ At that time [1635] it might have been possible for the
Emperor to prevent France from taking any further part in the
German disputes, by purchasing this favour with the surrender of
Alsace. If he decided on this sacrifice he would have no need to
treat with Saxony or to surrender Lusatia to that Power. In Rome
it was desired that the Emperor should satisfy the French claims ;
Pope Urban VIII. wanted in this way to make France more power-
ful, and to snatch Lusatia from the hands of the Protestants. At
that time Lamormaini received an Instruction from Rome to
influence the Emperor in this sense, and to represent to him the
recovery and reconversion to Catholicism of Lusatia as a work
pleasing to God, for which Alsace might be sacrificed. But, how-
ever much Lamormaini might try, this time all his exhortations
availed him nothing.”*

To the Emperor Ferdinand the Jesuit’s advice was so
indispensable that when Lamormaini was ill, he sent the
Prince of Eggenberg to him and begged for his opinion.
Thus Khevenhiller’s Annals proclaim the truth in saying
that :

“ Lamormaini tyrannised over the Emperor and the
Princes, and the Emperor was so completely in his power
that not the Emperor but the Jesuits reigned supreme.

Through Lamormaini’s influence, foreign Jesuits were
also set to work for the Emperor.

* Gindely, Geschichte des dreissigjahrigen Krieges , p. 14 ct seq. f II., 595.

Court Confessors

183

In December, 1619, Ferdinand II. sent Count Wratislaw
von Fiirstenberg to Louis XIII. in Paris in order to induce
the King to help. At first all attempts were in vain.
Finally he [Count Fiirstenberg] succeeded in winning over
the Royal Confessor, the Jesuit Arnoux ; the latter had
probably received directions from Rome to act in Ferdi-
nand’s interest; in any case he undertook the task. At
Christmas he put it to the King as a duty to assist the
Emperor, who was oppressed for the sake of religion . . .
In the evening of the same day the Royal Private Secretary
repaired to Fiirstenberg’s house and brought him word
that not only the King but also the Ministers had been
won over to active support of the Emperor.*

This explains the remark of Gustavus Adolphus :
“ There are three ‘ L’s ’ I should like to see hanged : the
Jesuit Lamormaini, the Jesuit Laymann, and the Jesuit
Laurentius Forer.”f

On the part of mediator between Spain and France
played by the Jesuit Coton, Father Confessor to Henry IV.
of France, Coton’s fellow- Jesuit Prat writes :

“ Persuade qu’une alliance entre la France et VEspagne
aurait de grands avantages pour VEglise, et qu’elle imposerait
aux puissances heretiques de V Europe, il avait toujours eu
soin de manager un rapprochement entre ces deux couronnes,
si longtemps ennemies. . . . Le projet du P. Coton . . .
abouti enfin . . . au manage de Louis XIII. avec Anne
d’Autriche.”$

In a letter to Louis XIV. Fenelon attacks the Jesuit
La Chaise, the all-powerful confessor of the King :

“ . . . Your Father Confessor is not vicious, but he shuns
sterling virtue and only loves worldly and licentious people. He is
jealous of his prestige, which you have raised to an unlimited height.

* Gindely, III., 6, quotes an original report of Fiirstenberg’s to the Emperor
dated Dec. 24th, 1619.

f Dudik, p. 248. J Rccherches , etc. (Lyons, 1876), III., 199, 200.

184

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

Never before did a King’s Father Confessor alone appoint bishops
and decide all questions of conscience. You, Sire, are the only
person in France who does not know that he [La Chaise] is ignorant,
that his mind is narrow and uncultured. The Jesuits, too, despise
him and are indignant at his giving in to the ambitions of his
family. You have turned a member of an Order into a Minister of
State ; he knows neither people nor things, and falls a ready victim
to any who flatter him and give him presents.”*

Especially interesting are the remarks of Madame de
Maintenon, scattered in numerous letters, on this Father
Confessor of her Koyal lover. They do not throw a par-
ticularly favourable light on his character, or that of the
Jesuits in general. Yet no one could dispute that Madame
de Maintenon had undeniable powers of observation, and
an interest in the Jesuits in general and La Chaise in

* Gregoire, Histoire des Confesseurs (Paris, 1824), p. 3G3 ; Lavallee, Corre-
spondance generate de Mme. de Maintenon (Paris, 1866), 4, 45 et seq . As regards
Gregoire, the tactics of the Jesuits are very clear. Wherever Gregoire reports
something in favour of a Jesuit princely confessor he is quoted in full ; if he reports
anything unfavourable it is suppressed, or Gregoire is called “ Gregoire the undis-
cerning.” Of course, the Jesuit Duhr is particularly great at this double-faced
use of Gregoire. For instance (in the Jesuitenfabeln (4), p. 69), Duhr quotes a
few words of praise by Gregoire on the Jesuit Arnoux, Confessor of Louis XIII.
of France, but suppresses the following intervening phrases : “ In the year 1621
Father Arnoux was dismissed from his office as confessor to the King. ... At
first he looked and spoke with resignation, but instead of congratulating himself
on being exempt from an office which must always be a burden in the eyes of
piety, he appeared to take his dismissal as a disgrace. Details told by Gramond
prove that the confessor’s bitter grief was to be seen in his behaviour, and that
he still strove ambitiously to recover his lost position. So hard is it (as a historian
says) for monks who have been employed at court to shake off its chains. In
order to return to his position, Arnoux engaged in intrigues in which the true
spirit of the Society [of Jesus] was revealed, as on their own confession they are
like a lion to those who fear them, like a hare to the courageous ” (pp. 332-334).
Duhr is careful also not to tell his readers the general opinion expressed by
Gregoire on Jesuit confessors. “ The Jesuit confessor at court was in a sense
the Agent of the Order, so as to work in its interest, to slander and ruin those who
thwarted or appeared to thwart its ambition. . . . Among the Jesuit con-
fessors of princes some are justly to be praised. But the virtue of the individual
does not represent the spirit of the community into whose secrets the confessors
were initiated, and who in several countries, especially in France, Spain, and par-
ticularly in Portugal, brought the sovereigns under their rule, and thus governed
the people for the benefit of their Society.” (Gregoire, pp. 336, 426 et seq.)

Court Confessors

185

particular. The letters are addressed to the Archbishop
of Paris, and belong to the period of 1695-1700. Here
are some specimens :

“ Do not attempt to cure Pere La Chaise, or to teach him moder-
ation on the principle that the pious are of no use . . . this
principle of the good Father’s [Madame de Maintenon frequently
speaks sarcastically of La Chaise as “ bon pere ”] is universally
known, you may openly discuss it with him. Do not feel in honour
bound to tell him that he in particular ought to be the protector
of piety, instead of saying that we are all of no use, just because
I love good people and he cannot bear them. . . . Father de la
Chaise has been to see me ... he was gay and free in his manner,
and his visit was more like an insult than an act of civility.
(Sa visite avait plus V air (Tune insulte que d’une honnetete.) The
Jesuits make war on us openly on all sides, and those who wish
for peace are to be pitied. . . . It is your place to defend the
€ause of the Church and the Bishop of Meaux [Bossuet], which
Father La Chaise attacked in speaking to the King. By the way in
which the King spoke to me this evening, I doubt less than ever
that you should speak to Father La Chaise about Confessors. . . .

I want you to make the Jesuits feel that you have given them up,
and that your consideration for them is forced. Perhaps you will
spare them, they will grow still more bitter against you . . .
although my head is in a sad state to-day, I cannot help relieving
my feelings to you about all the mischief that the good Father
[La Chaise] has achieved with the King. . . . Father La Chaise
wants to set right the harm he has done in the matter of Father
Poisson, but he has more talent for evil than for good, and the
reason is that his intentions are not honest. He complains greatly
to the King of not being included among the [newly to be appointed]
bishops. Such speeches remove the impression of kindness ; and
I was malicious enough to tell him straight out that he need not
be the enemy of the bishops, because he was not of their number.

... On Sunday I saw Father Bourdaloue [a Jesuit and cele-
brated preacher in Paris], who expressed to me the sorrow of the
Society [of Jesus] at my appearing not to love them, on account
of the estrangement between me and Father La Chaise. I answered

1 86 Fourteen Years a Jesuit

that it was not my fault, and that I was ready to meet any advance
on their part.”*

I have dwelt so long on Madame de Maintenon and her
relations to the Jesuit La Chaise, because the Jesuits try
to make the public believe that her unfavourable opinion
of him was mainly based on “ forgeries ” by the Calvinist
La Beaumelle. The testimony of the genuine letters of
Madame de Maintenon is suppressed by the Jesuits.f

The Jesuit La Chaise was followed by the Jesuit Tellier
(or Letellier) in the post of Confessor to Louis XIY. His
influence on the King and his policy was so great that
even Cretineau-Joly admits that “ Letellier dominated
(dominait) Louis XIV.

Saint-Simon, who was personally acquainted with the
Jesuit Tellier, draws a vivid picture of him :

“ Till then Father Tellier was quite unknown to the King. He
only knew his name, which, with five or six other Jesuit names,
was on a list drawn up by Father La Chaise of those who would
be suited to succeed him. Tellier had passed through every grade
of the Society, having been Professor, Theologian, Kector and
Provincial Scriptor. He had been commissioned [during the dispute
about the Chinese rites] to defend the creed of Confucius. . . .

* Lavallee, Correspondance generate de Madame de Maintenon (Paris, 1866), 4,
52, 89, 151, 154, 161, 179 et seq., 310. The statement about the Jesuit Bourdaloue
is also worthy of note. In the pulpit he played the part of the stern penitential
preacher who attacks the loose morals of the court ; in the boudoir of the former
mistress and future wife of Louis XIV. he sued for her favour towards his Order.

| The Jesuit Duhr deals in truly Jesuitical fashion with the doings of his
fellow-Jesuit La Chaise ( J esuitenfabeln (4), pp. 674-681 ). The seven pages he
devotes to him are filled with timid elusion of the subject, an attempt to discredit
sources that are unfavourable to La Chaise. But Duhr evades the real task which
he should have attempted, to justify La Chaise’s conduct as the confessor of
a king who was mastered by his passions. He says : “ We cannot here discuss
the question whether any reproaches can be brought against this Jesuit and of
what nature ; our only object is to clear away some of the fabulous deposit (sic)
which has accumulated about this confessor in such masses that his person has
become almost mythical ” (p. 674). We should imagine it was just these reproaches
which were in question.

J Cretineau-Joly, 4, 451.

Court Confessors

187

He was a zealous partisan of Molinism [system of the Jesuit doctrine
of grace which derived its name from the Jesuit Molina], and desired
to erect the new dogmas of his Order on the ruins of the antago-
nistic opinions. Educated in such principles and initiated into all
the secrets of the Order, because of the genius which the Order
discovered in him, he had, ever since entering it, lived only for
the realisation of the principles of the Order, believing that for the
attainment of this end everything was permissible. Of severe
intellect, always on the alert, a foe to all frivolity and social pleasures.
... All moderation was hateful to him, he only tolerated it
under compulsion, or with the prospect of thus more surely attaining
his goal. . . . His life was a hard one from inclination and habit.
. . . Formed by the principles and policy of the Society of Jesus
... he was thoroughly false, deceitful and malicious, concealing
himself by a thousand folds and windings . . . scoffing at the
most formal agreements if it no longer suited him to abide by them,
and passionately pursuing those with whom they had been made.
He was a terrible man, aiming at revolution both openly and
secretly. . . . His outward appearance promised nothing else,
and it kept its promises. If met in a forest, he would have inspired
terror ; his face was sombre and false ; his eyes were wicked,
penetrating and crooked. That such a man, who had dedicated his
body ana soul to the Order, who knew no other nourishment than
its deepest secrets, and no other God but the Society . . . was
in all other respects coarse, ignorant and insolent, knowing neither
courtesy nor moderation, is not surprising. He had completed
his training in the principles of the Order at Rome, and the Order
had been compelled to send him back to France on account of the
sensation caused by his book [on the Chinese rites] which had been
placed on the Index. When he visited the King in his cabinet
for the first time after his introduction, Bloin and Fagon were
present. Fagon, leaning on his stick, closely watched his expression
and movements. The King asked him whether he were related
to the Le Telliers (a family of the old nobility). The Father bowed.

‘ I, Sire, related to the lords of Le Tellier ? Far from it. I am a
poor peasant’s son, from Normandy, where my father was a farmer.’
Fagon, whom nothing escaped, turned to Blois and said, pointing
to the Jesuit : 4 What a villain ! 5 (Quel sacre /). Nor was he mis-

i88

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

taken in this strange judgment on a confessor. This Tellier had
put on the manners and gestures of a man who was afraid of his
position, and only accepted it out of obedience to his Order. I have
dwelt in such detail on this new confessor, because he was the
originator of those amazing storms under which even to this day
State and Church, education and doctrine, and so many good
people are suffering, and because I have a more immediate and
exact knowledge of this terrible personality than anyone else at
court.”*

Saint-Simon also tells us with what perseverance
Tellier sought his society, because he knew of the great
influence which Saint-Simon possessed with the King and
the Dukes of Berry and Orleans. f He concludes his
account of Tellier with the words :

“ He (Tellier) saw the King an old man and a Dauphin in his
first childhood. His task with the King was an easy one . . .
for he doubtless remembered the legacy of Father La Chaise, I mean
the strange counsel which he gave him. He preferred to leave
everything to the Jesuits rather than irritate them and expose
himself to the chance of a dagger.”^

Saint-Simon also gives a character sketch of the Jesuit
Bermudez, Confessor at the Court of Madrid, in connection
with which we may note that Saint-Simon, during his
stay at Madrid as French ambassador, had a good deal
of intercourse with Bermudez.

“ Bermudez, a Spaniard to the core, hated France and the
French, and was secretly devoted to the House of Austria and
connected with the whole Italian cabal.” §

The predecessor of Bermudez in the office of Confessor
to the King was his fellow-Jesuit d’Aubanton, who played
the same important political part in Spain as his co-Jesuits,
Caussin, Coton, La Chaise, Tellier, etc., in France, and

* Memoires , p. 240.
t Pp. 9, 431.

t Pp. 240 and 9, 231.
§ Pp. 19, 133.

Court Confessors

189

Becan, Lamormaini, etc., at Vienna. D’Aubanton,
formerly Assistant to the General in Rome and, as Saint-
Simon asserts, the author of the bull unigenitus directed
against the Jansenists, which caused so much trouble and
disturbance, had succeeded the Jesuit Robinet as the
King’s Confessor.*

“ Ce changement de confesseur ,” says Saint-Simon,
“fut un grand et long malheur pour les deux couronnes ”
(France and Spain).

The importance which d’Aubanton attached to himself
and his position as the King’s Confessor, and the value
set by the Order on the appointment of one of its members,
may be gathered from an interesting communication of
d’ Alembert’s, f

D’Aubanton had induced Louis XIV. to arrange that
Philip V. of Spain should take a Jesuit confessor, in the
first instance d’Aubanton himself. And the regular
appointment of a Jesuit as the King’s confessor in Madrid
was laid down, owing to the influence of the Jesuits, as
an essential condition of a good understanding between
France and Spain, in a secret article in the Treaty of
Peace of 1720.i

One of the most adroit political agents of his day was
the Jesuit Monod, Confessor of the Duchess Christine of
Savoy, daughter of Henry IV. of France. Her husband,
Victor Amadeo I. of Savoy, often made use of Monod for
diplomatic missions. His biographer, Raimond, says of
him in the Biographie universelle :

“ Monod ruled over Paris, Madrid, Rome and Turin. Cardinal
Richelieu recognised the danger of Monod, who had combined with
his fellow- Jesuit Caussin, the Confessor of Louis XIII., and succeeded
in bringing about the banishment of both Jesuits from court.”

* Memoires , 11, 110. | D'Alembert, (Euvres (Paris, 1S05), 10, 57.

{ Cf. Dollinger-Reusch, I., 102.

§ Gr ego ire, Ilistoirc des Confesseurs , pp. 193, 194.

ig° Fourteen Years a Jesuit

Very discreditable was the part played by the confessor
of Duke Charles IV. of Lorraine, the Jesuit Cheminet.

“ He supported the Duke in his desire for a separation from
his wife, to whom he had been married for twelve years, in order
to marry a Mademoiselle de Cantecroix. And this though he was
also confessor to the Duchess ! Rome decided in 1664 against the
amorous Duke and the accommodating Jesuit.”*

A marked hostility to Germany characterises the polit-
ical activity of the Jesuit Vervaux, under Maximilian I.
of Bavaria.

Vervaux was Maximilian’s confessor and, as Stein-
berger admits, “ may be regarded as the type of an accom-
modating court theologian.” In the spring of 1645 he
was sent, with the cognisance and approval of his Superiors
(as is shown by a letter addressed by the Provincial of the
Upper German Province, Nicasius Widmanns, to the Head
of the Jesuit Professed-House in Paris), by Maximilian
to Paris to pave the way for an understanding between
France and Bavaria. Vervaux set out on this distinctly
political embassy under the alias and with the outward
appearance of Chevalier Baptiste de Clorans, on March 3rd,
1645. On April 5th and 11th Clorans-Vervaux had inter-
views with Mazarin which, however, led to no result, and
the Chevalier Jesuit returned to Munich on May 22nd,
without having accomplished his purpose.f

Two years later Vervaux composed a report for his
penitent Maximilian I., in which he once more advocated
an alliance with Bavaria and France, on the ground that
it was lawful, honourable, and necessary. The document
ends with the words :

“ If the matter turns out well, the Austrians and

* Gregoire, Histoire des Confesseurs , p. 181.

| For details and documentary proofs, see Steinberger, Die Jesuiten und dte
Friedcnsfrage , pp. 41-75.

Court Confessors

191

Spaniards will show honour to those whom they used to
despise, and take up a more suitable attitude.”

This clearly shows that it was not with a view to
conquering the Protestant Powers that the Jesuit Vervaux
desired the alliance between France and Bavaria, and that
this was not a question of religious denominationalism,
which would have made the opinion of a confessor seem
natural. No, this Jesuit was intervening in actual politics ;
and the Jesuit proposal was even directed against Spain
and Austria, Catholic Powers.*

That the princes did not always select Jesuit confessors
of their own free will, but were often driven by threats
to surrender these influential posts to this powerful Order,
is evident from a communication made by Marechal,
physician-in-ordinary to Louis XIV. of France.

Marechal informed the Duke and Duchess of Saint-
Simon that the King had told him the following : The
Jesuit La Chaise, for so many years his confessor, had urged
upon him (the King) shortly before his death to choose
his next confessor also from the Jesuit Order. He was
influenced, he said, in making this request only by his
desire for the King’s interests. He (La Chaise) knew his
Order well, and although the many slanders spread abroad
about it were untrue, yet he could only repeat that “ he
knew his Order well, and on that account implored the
King to accede to his request ; the Society was very
widely disseminated and composed of the most various
persons, for whom it was not possible always to be respon-
sible ; he besought the King not to drive the Society of
Jesus to extremities, for it was easy to play him a nasty
trick ( un mauvais coup).” Saint-Simon adds : “ It was
the consideration of this power of the Order which induced
Henri IV. to favour the Jesuits. . . . Louis was not
superior to Henri IV. ; he was careful to bear in mind

* Steinberger, Die Jesuiten und die Friedansfrage , p. 97 ct se g.

192

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

the revelations of Father La Chaise, and avoided exposing
himself to the revenge of the Society of Jesus by choosing
his confessors from outside their ranks. He wished to
live and to live in security. He therefore commissioned
the Dukes of Chevreuse and Beauvillier to inquire with
all due precautions which of the Jesuits he had better
take as his confessor.”*

Not infrequently the Order encountered difficulties, in
instituting the appointment of princely confessors, from
the bishops, who were not always in agreement with the
morale aisee of the Jesuit directors. But the Jesuits
managed skilfully to set aside the difficulties. A par-
ticularly striking instance of this occurred in the case of
one of the numerous Jesuit confessors of Louis XY. of
France, who, doubtless, was in special need of a legitimised
morale aisee . The Archbishop of Paris, Cardinal de
Noailles, refused the jurisdiction of the King to the
Jesuit de Lignieres, so that Lignieres would not have been
able to absolve the King.f What action was taken by
advice of the Jesuit ?

“ Le roi se rendit a Saint-Cyr, qui dependoit du diocese
de Chartres, ou il jut confess e par le pere de Lignieres, et,
pour soustraire celui-ci a la jurisdiction du Cardinal de
Noailles, on V envoy a a Pontoise, qui etait alors du diocese
de Rouen. On ohtint ensuite un href du Pape qui permettoit
au roi de choisir pour confesseur tel ecclesiastique qu’il
voudroit, pourvu qu il jut approuve par V ordinaire, en
declarant que le roi ne devoit etre repute d'aucun diocese
particulierP%

* MemoireSy 6, 238 et seq.

f In order that a priest, even if a member of an Order, may hear confessions
he must be “approved ” by his diocesan bishop and equipped with jurisdiction.
The priestly consecration alone ( potestas ordinis) does not entitle him to hear
confessions ; to it must be added the potestas jurisdictionis of the ecclesiastical
authorities.

t Memoires de la Regence (La Haye, 1737), 3, 153. Gregoire, p. 119.

Court Confessors

i93

If we assume that Jesus Christ did really institute
confession, what would He have said to such confession
and absolution on the part of His Society ?

And now a word as to the material position of the
Jesuits who acted as princely confessors.

The Jesuit confessor of the King of France received
an annual salary of 6,854 livres, of which 300 went in the
upkeep of a carriage. Whenever the confessor dined at
court a banquet of six courses had to be served him.*
Louis XI Y. had presented to his confessor, the Jesuit La
Chaise, a beautiful country-house as a place of retirement.
It stood on the spot where is now the celebrated cemetery,
which takes its name, Pere La Chaise, from the Royal
Confessor. The Jesuit d’Aubanton, Royal Confessor at
Madrid, drew a salary of 4,000 livres.f

I may conclude this section with a few quotations,
partly from Jesuits themselves, partly from other persons,
regarding Jesuit politics and the confessors of princes.

A very interesting insight into the views of the Order
as to the spiritual direction of princes is afforded by a
secret report of the Visitator of the Upper German Province
of the year 1596, the Jesuit Paul Hoffaus :

66 The present Pope too [Clement VIII.], speaking, as is piously
believed, in the words of God, whose Vicar he is on earth, has
publicly reproached us with interfering in the affairs of princes
and states, and trying in a measure to rule the world according to
our views. That is why the last General Congregation [the fifth,
1593-94] has bidden us by the strictest decrees { to keep aloof from
such matters. And if we do not at last become wise, frightened by
so many evil consequences, it is to be feared that we may some
day feel the avenging hand of God, to our far greater injury. True,
it is said that our confessors, who are the spiritual counsellors of
princes, should be more leniently judged in this respect. Yet they

* Journal historique de Trevoux (Verdun, April, 1709), p. 247.

f Saint-Simon, Memoircs , 16, 205. J Decret. 47, 79; cf. p. 133, 134.

N

194 Fourteen Years a Jesuit

ought to know that it is a question here of a prohibition in the
Constitutions and in the decrees of the above-mentioned Congre-
gations, and also consider that the permission is only accorded to
them by a dispensation, assuming that both parties receive the
dispensation and not one only. But such a dispensation must only
be moderately and prudently used, so that no evil consequences
may ensue for the Society and, which is of most importance, that
greater spiritual benefits, which should be undertaken to the honour
of God and the salvation of our neighbour, may not be hindered.
Would that the confessors might carefully observe the words of the
dispensation, which perhaps refers only to doubtful cases, where
it is not sufficiently certain whether the matter touches the con-
science but little or not at all, while it is possible that the wish
of our General [Acquaviva] is that our people should take no part
at all in purely political matters, or only in cases when a prince
is in grievous sorrow, or would be greatly distressed or offended
if his confessor were to refuse his services in a particular case.
Further, as intervention in worldly affairs is so much opposed to
our Institute that we cannot but fear that God will refuse His aid
to our deliberations on these matters, and our counsel might
therefore direct the prince to the wrong road, it seems advisable
that the confessors, as far as is possible, should refrain from lightly
urging the prince to this or that course without the advice of the
Superior of the Order, and that they should rather urge him first
to seek advice from his own counsellors before he invites our members
to give their advice. Else the prince’s counsellors might be justified
in imagining that politics were conducted according to the views
of the Jesuits, and that they were only consulted proforma without
any result, which would be wounding to them and also injurious
to us. I do not say this in order to entangle the confessors and lay
snares for them, but rather to warn them not to enter too securely
and freely into temporal discussions, but with a certain wholesome
fear and moderation, and rather avoid such matters, as far as this
can be done in seemly fashion and without giving offence. 15 *

* From Reusch, Beitrdge zur Geschichte des J esuitenordens : Zeitsckrift fur
Kir cheng eschicMe (1894), p. 265 et seq. Reusch rests his statements on unpublished
documents in the State Archives at Munich, to which he had access in the
original

Court Confessors

T 95

Tlic Jesuit Viller also speaks some plain words, which
throw a strong light on the attitude of the Jesuit Order
towards the office of princely confessor.

Viller, Father Confessor of Archduke Charles of Styria,
was one of the most influential Jesuits of Austria ; for
many years he filled the most important posts in the
Order — those of Rector and Provincial. Because of the
great favour he enjoyed at court, he had many envious
enemies, who denounced him secretly to the General. He
defended himself in several long and outspoken letters.
On June 8th, 1598, he wrote to the Jesuit Duras, German
Assistant to General Acquaviva :

“ In the early days of our Society we all rejoiced if one of us
found favour with a prince, and our efforts were directed towards
the end of winning the favour of princes. Now there are some who
are angry and envious if any one is in favour and labours with
good result. Under the pretence of virtue they show zeal for
the discipline of the Society and are filled with envy.”*

In a letter addressed by the Jesuit Francisco Antonio,
Confessor to the Empress Maria, wife of Maximilian II.,
to the General Mercurian, on April 30th, 1576, we read :

“ There is not a bishop, ambassador, or lord who would not
desire to have some Jesuits in attendance ; the door [to the princely
courts] which is closed by the vows after profession, appears in a
fashion to be reopened in this way. For there is no lack of those
who seek after such posts with princes, and this leads to many
abuses. In the first place they grow accustomed to a certain liberty,
which is little in harmony with our rules. . . . Finally, there is
little spiritual advantage to be gained by it : it leads to ill reports
about the Society, as people notice that our members tolerate con-
siderable abuses at the courts or else refuse to see them, only
because they desire to enjoy this liberty and honour.”f

* Du hr, p. 45.

t Duhr, who gives an extract from this letter (in die Jesuiten an den dentschen
Furstenhofen des 16ierc Jahrhunderts , Freiburg, 1901, p. 16), describes it as a
“ somewhat one-sided exposition.” Its contents would probably appear even

196 Fourteen Years a Jesuit

In a letter to Leschasser, of March 27th, 1612, Paolo
Sarpi reports :

“ Many as were the intrigues which they [the Jesuits] stirred
up against us [i.e. Venice, from which territory the Jesuits had
been expelled], they cannot be compared with those which they
have set on foot in Constantinople. For there they are doing all
in their power to stir up the Turks against us.”*

A manuscript report by Leibnitz, of August 28th, 1682,
contains this passage :

“ Dans qudques jours nous reprendrons cette matiere,
oil nous verrons combien il est peu a propos que les Eccle-
siastiques se melent des affaires d’Estat, et principalment
les Jesuites, qui sont aujourd’huy si puissans, qu'il leur
est forte aise de pancher la balance du coste, qu’ils croyent
le plus a leur bienseance, et ce coste est apparamment celuy
de la France, a laquelle il est evident que ces bons peres
veuillent sacrifier le trone imperial, en quoy peutestre ils
reussiront, si on continue a les consulter et a les croire a
la cour de Vienne.” f

The following is from an Italian manuscript preserved
in the Bibliotheque Nationale in Paris : $ “ Instruction
to princes as to the manner in which the Jesuits rule ” :

“ As among the reports which the Provincials send in there
are also some which deal with the character, inclinations and
intentions of the various princes, the General and his Assistants
in Rome are placed in a position to survey and judge of the political

more one-sided ; i.e . they would throw an even stronger light on the Jesuit
pursuit of the office of confessor at princely courts, forbidden by the Constitutions,
if Duhr had published the letter in full, and not in an extract, which doubtless
was garbled.

* Le Bret, Magazin (Frankfort, 1773), 3, 542. “ The Magazine for the use

of political and ecclesiastical history as well as of ecclesiastical law of Catholic
princes in respect of their clergy,” by Johann Friedrich Le Bret (Frankfort and
Leipzig, 1773-78), 10 vols., contains a number of valuable and rare documents
on the history of the Jesuit Order.

| Onno Klopp, Die werke von Leibniz (Hanover, 1866), V. 169 et seq .

J Fonds italiens , No. 986.

Court Confessors

i97

state of the world and to regulate the attitude of the Order in
accordance with its own interests. In particular, the confessions,
which a great many of the Catholic nobility and many Catholic
princes make to the Jesuits, are a means of procuring for the Order
a knowledge of important matters, an object for which princes
have to pay large sums to ambassadors and spies, but which now
only costs the Jesuits the money for postage. In the same manner
they also learn the disposition of the subjects and know which
of them are well-disposed to the princes and which are not. . . .
In Rome the Jesuits constantly swarm around the cardinals,
ambassadors and prelates, and inquire about everything that
occurs or is about to occur, and try to turn it to their own
advantage, so that events of importance often have an entirely
different issue from that which the princes desire. The greater
part of the business of Christendom passes through their hands.
They prevailed on Gregory XIII. to order all legates and nuncios
to take Jesuits as their companions and confidants. . . . Jesuits
who are taken into the confidence of a prince seek advice imme-
diately of the General about matters of importance and follow his
directions.’ 5 *

Macaulay sums up his judgment in these words :

“ They glided from one Protestant country to another, under
innumerable disguises, as gay Cavaliers, as simple rustics, as Puritan

preachers.”!

Cretineau-Joly, who writes in the pay of the Order,
takes up a peculiar position. He cannot deny the enormous
influence of the Jesuit Order on the political conditions
of Europe. But he discovers a theory of justification.

“ In the intention of Loyola politics were certainly excluded
from his institution ; but in the sixteenth century all matters of
the court and diplomacy, and even the wars, had a religious basis.
. . . The Jesuits were, therefore, compelled to intervene in
political and social movements.” %

* From Huber, Geschichtc des J esuitenordens (Munich, 1873), p. 101 et seq .
f Macaulay’s History , Chap. VI. J Cretineau-Joly, 2, 175.

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

198

And feeling that he has thus cleared the way, he
boldly bears testimony to the gigantic political power of
the Order.

“ Colbert, Louvois, Seignelai, Pontchartrain, and Croissy, the
Ministers of Louis XIV., were encompassed by the counsels of
Father Antoine Verjus [a Jesuit] ; the Marshal of Luxemburg and
Villars sought his opinion in affairs of importance ; the Count of
Crecy, the French ambassador at the German Reichstag, did not
wish to be the only one deprived of the illumination of the Jesuits
\lumieres\. He besought Louis XIV. to obtain for him this diplo-
matic helper (cet auxiliaire diplomatique) from the Superiors of the
Order, and accordingly Father Verjus was instructed [by his
Superiors] to repair to Germany. There the breadth of his intellect
and the moderation of his character soon won for him the regard
of Catholic and even Protestant princes. Baron von Schwerin,
ambassador of the Elector of Brandenburg, Grote, the Hanoverian
ambassador, both zealous Lutherans, were among his best friends.
. . . The most celebrated parliamentarians [of France] followed
the pious counsels of [the Jesuit] Jean Crasset.” *

* lb id., 4 , 468 cl seq .

CHAPTER XX

SCHOLASTIC YEARS AT WYNANDSRADE, BLYENBECK AND

DITTON nALL

I passed my time as a scholastic of the Society of Jesus
(a name, as I have shown, but little suited to the
Jesuit Order) in the colleges at Wynandsrade, Blyenbeck
(in Holland), and at Ditton Hall, in England. I will
deal shortly with this period of seven years, 1880-87.

Notwithstanding the variety of times and places, there
is nothing but uniformity to record about the external
part of the life. I was surrounded everywhere by the
same daily routine and customs. Life in the Jesuit Order,
especially during the training ( i.e . the scholastic period),
goes on like absolutely regular and even clockwork. To
the scholastic the days from four in the morning to nine at
night are identical — religious exercises, studies, recreation ;
recreation, studies and religious exercises always follow
each other at exactly the same intervals.

I do not wish to find fault with this ; rather the con-
trary. Uniformity and regularity are desirable during
the training of members of every profession, if they are
to be qualified for prominent positions. Still no other
calling, not even that of a soldier, is as regular and unevent-
ful as that of the Jesuits. In all other professions some
time and space are available for individual activity and
for freedom, since no other calling aims at destroying the
personality of the individual. But the Jesuit Order is
determined to transform the whole man into the whole

199

200

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

Jesuit ; hence the suppression of all freedom, even in
external matters. Even recreation, which would seem to
be necessarily connected with liberty and individuality,
is used for compulsion and restraint. For the Superior
arranges exactly with whom every one is to associate either
during the two daily recreation hours after dinner and
supper, or the two weekly walks. The scholastics are
not allowed any freedom in choosing their companions.
Here also the system of turmae prevails. They are also
strictly forbidden to abstain from recreation, although real
recreation might frequently be found in doing so.

This inflexible uniformity of the external life, which
knows hardly any exception, and which divides the
scholastic’s year 365 times into mathematically equal
parts and particles, is a means, gentle yet irresistible, of
killing personal individuality. The polishing and planing
of the personality which is set up in the novitiate with
intensive force, transforming human beings into easily and
noiselessly rolling balls, is also active in the scholasticate.
For, since the balls are living, it is possible that angles
may grow out again. Anything of the kind must be
prevented. Hence the perpetual motion of the evenly
working machine of exterior Jesuit life.

Another result of this system which is advantageous to
the Order must be mentioned. The continual occupation
under constant and strict supervision, the absolute lack
of really free time in which individuality may realise and
assert itself, essentially restrict free thought. There is no
time for pondering over doubts and difficulties which the
life of the Order may suggest. Consequently opposition
to the Jesuit system cannot develop. Minutely regulated
activity overrides obscurity, doubt and opposition.

The studies which I had to pursue also belong to the
exterior life of this period. They were the Humanities
and Rhetoric at Wynandsrade (1880-81), Philosophy at

Scholastic Years

201

Blyenbeck (1881-83), and Theology at Ditton Hall
(1883-87). I shall deal with them separately.

My inner life within this rigid frame was stirring
enough. In spite of everything, I had not become a “ ball ”
during my novitiate. I had retained my individuality ;
it had maintained its ground against all the levelling
discipline. But, just because of its strength, it exposed
me to the severest pain, though in the end it led to the
joy of freedom after long and hard years of struggle.

My Rector at Wynandsrade was the Jesuit Hermann
Nix, the same who played so ugly a part behind the scenes
in the Hartmann-Ebenhoch trial.

In reality, it is not the duty of a Jesuit Rector to
be the regular spiritual guide of his subordinates ; the
spiritual father (who at Wynandsrade was the Jesuit
Eberschweiler) was there for that purpose, but Nix took
upon himself this function, at least so far as we scholastics
— and especially I myself — were concerned.

I laid bare my soul to him and unreservedly submitted
myself to his guidance. And it is due to the Jesuit Nix
that I did not even then leave the Order, but rather pursued
the thorny path with greater firmness. Again and again,
by day and by night — for the struggle continued even at
night, with unflinching constancy and untiring patience —
this I willingly grant — he strove to bring my self-asserting
ego under the yoke of a delusive belief in Church and Order.
Again and again he pointed out the great and shining
goal — the glory of God — when I wished to forsake the
holy calling, and from my own religious idealism he forged
the chains to fetter me to the Jesuit idol. How I hate
him, this typical Jesuit — warm-hearted and cold, idealistic
and prosaic, gentle and harsh, pious and godless, con-
scientious and utterly unscrupulous, passionate and coldly
calculating. He, who was neither a Master of the Novices
nor even a spiritual Father, fastened the burden of the

202

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

Jesuit life so firmly upon me that the knot held for fourteen
years. Nevertheless, I must thank him on two scores.

All the energy latent within me was awakened and
guided by him to definite action. To his teaching I owe
the skill and strength, which I have been obliged to draw
upon so frequently up to the present day, to overcome
apparently insurmountable difficulties. And — most impor-
tant of all — should I have been capable of fighting against
Ultramontane Rome and Jesuitism with thorough know-
ledge, and thereby performing a work of enlightenment for
mankind, if I had left the Order at Wynandsrade after
a novitiate of two years ? Never ! I should again have
become what I was previously, and what millions are
to-day — a Catholic who devoutly, although perhaps not
without inner difficulties, jogs along on the appointed path.
Above all, this book, which throws light and truth on
the Jesuit Order, would have remained unwritten had it
not been for the Jesuit Nix. Consequently I thank him,
notwithstanding my hatred.

When I passed in July, 1880, from the novitiate at
Exaeten into the scholasticate at Wynandsrade, there
was indeed considerable uneasiness within me, but on the
whole I stood with firm feet on the trodden path of the
Order. This was soon, almost suddenly, changed at
Wynandsrade.

A profound change took place on November 13th,
1880, almost in one night, with the taking of the vow. It
was not that I objected to the wording of the vow. Far
from it ! I wished to be poor, chaste and obedient. But
the uneasy feeling which had already frequently troubled
me, that the Jesuit Order was not what it appeared to be,
and that there were dark abysses under my feet, took
possession of me with a power previously unknown. Two
forces now began a hard conflict within me.

The Ultramontane Jesuit point of view which had

Scholastic Years

203

been fostered in me by inheritance and training gave
its verdict, which was powerfully strengthened by
family tradition and religious beliefs, in favour of the
Order. Nature rose in opposition to it. I wanted to
believe in the goodness of the Jesuit Order, and to maintain
undisturbed the ideal picture formed of it from the first
years of my childhood, but I could not. The voices
sounding from Church and family, belief and tradition,
raised no living echo in my innermost soul. Doubt and
oppression lived there because they were natural. Such
tormenting conditions arose for soul and body that words
may not even suggest them. The life of the spirit and the
nervous system suffered severely. Not that I became
confused in thought or neurasthenic. But, in spite of
clearness of thought, strength of will and outward peace,
there arose in me an agonising tumult which caused every
chord of my soul and every fibre of my body to tremble.
For weeks — for months, indeed — I did not sleep. My bed
became a rack of indescribable misery. The hours from
nine at night to four or five in the morning, in which I
was defencelessly exposed to the inner conflict without
possibility of outer diversion — for I was strictly forbidden
to seek relief by getting up and occupying myself with
other things — were hours of torture in the worst sense of
the word. And then the long day lasted from four in the
morning to nine at night, and all the time I was obliged
to fulfil my duties under constraint. Nobody must notice
anything of my inner suffering ; I had to be equable,
even cheerful. The cries and the bitter weeping of my
tortured soul had to be suppressed. Certainly I found
some help in the prescribed occupations. But of what
kind were they ? I, a man of twenty-eight, having passed
my matriculation and law examinations and done some
practical legal work, sat on the form with boys of eighteen,
did Latin and Greek exercises, wrote compositions, and

204

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

learnt grammatical rules and poems like a pupil of the
second class.

And this was not all, not even the worst.

Along with my doubts about the Order arose doubts
in connection with my religion and my Church. That
which years before had vaguely troubled me, and years
later was the real cause of my leaving the Order, then
appeared for the first time in clear form.

For if my belief in certain dogmas of the Roman
Catholic Church, and thus in the Church itself, had not
given way previously, I should never have left the Jesuit
Order, but should have sought and found strength, through
belief in the Church and the support of her judgment
that the Order was good, to sacrifice my judgment and
my desires, and by trampling my individuality under
foot, have followed in the path of the Order to the end.
But when the rock of the Church crumbled under my
feet, naturally the Jesuit erection founded on it also
collapsed.

I have mentioned in the first part of this book the
difficulties and terror which the dogma of the Real Pres-
ence of Christ in the Sacrament had caused me even in
childhood, and how, later, my belief in the doctrine of
the Church regarding the Virgin Mary and her adoration
also received a rude shock. These two dark clouds again
appeared on my religious horizon at Wynandsrade simul-
taneously with the doubts about the Order.

Only those who know from personal and practical
experience the intimate connection of these particular
doctrines concerning Christ and the Virgin Mary with
Catholic feeling, and the manner in which they form the
pivot of the Catholic faith, can estimate the awfulness
for a Catholic heart when they begin to totter and fall.
It is no exaggeration to say that the sun seems to be
extinguished when these religious stars begin to fade.

Scholastic Years

205

I shall deal with the difficulties concerning the sacra-
ment of the altar when speaking of my stay at the Ditton
Hall Theological College, because they are closely con-
nected with formal theology, but I will say at once
what is necessary about the Virgin Mary and her adoration.
For, although the Virgin Mary and her adoration are also
connected with dogma, and are consequently also concep-
tions of formal theology, scholarly theology has abandoned
them more completely than other religious doctrines.
They have really passed over into the popular conscious-
ness, into everyday Catholic sentiment, so to speak.

In the Catholic Church the adoration of the Virgin
has assumed forms which not only directly and manifestly
contradict the position occupied by Mary in the Scriptures,
but have also become so unlovely in themselves and
so unreligious that their continuance — indeed, their con-
tinually increasing grotesque developments — can only be
explained by the general suppression of intellect and
judgment which broods like darkness over the high and
low Ultramontane Catholic world.

Now this adoration of the Virgin and the work of its
further development lie in the peculiar domain of the
Jesuit Order. In the course of time it has led to a fearful
development of a pseudo-religious and pseudo -mystical
nature. And even to the present day the Jesuit litera-
ture dealing with the Virgin is a collection of the most
extravagant doctrines and assertions, and, above all, of
the wildest devotional practices and miraculous stories. I
have already, in previous chapters, cited examples of the
ascetic practices of the Marian Congregations in honour of
the Virgin.

The following dates from the time when the Order was
in its prime, shortly before its suppression :

In the middle of the eighteenth century the Jesuits
held a service at Munich in honour of the Virgin Mary’s

2o6 Fourteen Years a Jesuit

comb. A poem and a portion from a sermon regarding
the Virgin’s hair will illustrate the service : —

Gott der alle Haarlein zahlet,

Hat Him diese auserwahlet,

Mir seynd diese wenig Haarlein
Werther drum als alle Perlein.

Absolons goldgelbe Locken ,

Schdtz ich mehr nicht , als die Flocken,

Er selbst gilt bei mir sehr weing.

1st ja nur ein Eichelkonig.

Dock Maria deine Locken,

Mich zu deiner Lieb anlocken,

Schonste Jungfrau, deine Strehnen
Efleg ich allzeit anzuflehnen.

T Vie im Hohenlied zu lesen,

Seynd der Brauthaar Pfeil gewesen,

Ich be field mich deinen Ilaaren,

Die dem Gespons so angenehm ivaren.

Steh uns bei in alien Gefahren,

Deck uns zu mit deinen Haarcn,

Fuhre uns an deinen Locken
In die Stadt, wo alle frohlocken.

From the sermon : “A janizary, living in Constantinople,
had such thick hair that no bullet was able to injure him.
The hair of our dear Lady resembles this janizary’s hair.
Come, therefore, dear Christian, if thou wilt be bullet-
proof, here into the Hair Chapel of our dear Lady. Hide
behind the miraculous hair of the Mother of God and the
bullets of thine enemies will not harm thee. Thou wilt

Scholastic Years

20 7

stand in the middle of the storm of bullets, as though
encased in a woollen bag, if thou art a servant of Mary’s
hair, for Mary’s hair shields her janizaries.”*

The Jesuit Pemble published a booklet of the Virgin
Mary, “ Pietas quotidiana erga S. D. Matrem Mariam ,” in
which, amongst other tilings, he recommends the following
devotional exercises in her honour r

“ We should say at all hours : ‘ Holy Mary, make us
gentle and chaste ’ ; scourge ourselves or box our ears
and offer the blows to God through Mary’s hands ; always
carry a picture of the Mother of God on our breast ;
write or grave Mary’s holy name on the breast with our
fingers, if not with a knife ; kiss Mary’s name whenever
it occurs in reading ; cover ourselves over modestly at
night so that Mary’s chaste eyes may not be offended ;
lie between Christ’s wounds and Mary’s breast and draw
thence as much grace as possible ; desire rather to be out
of the world or in hell if Mary had not lived ; keep our
eyes so in check as not even to see a bare calf or toe on
lying down or getting up ; beat the breast eleven times —
eleven thousand would be more devout — possibly with a
stone in the hand, in remembrance of the eleven thousand
virgins, worshippers of the Virgin Mary, who followed in
the train of St. Ursula [which eleven thousand virgins are
still honoured in Cologne] ; hang a rope round the neck
and recognise ourselves as vassals of the blessed Virgin ;
eat no apples, because Mary remained free from the sin
of eating an apple [in Paradise] ; pray to Mary that she
may give us a pleasant dream of herself.” f

Such “ religious ” aberrations, which are even now
expressed in hundreds and thousands of “ pious ” Jesuit
monstrosities, had always been difficult for me to digest,
notwithstanding my Catholic belief in the Virgin Mary. In

* From the collected works of A. v. Bucher, I., 87, 88.

f Ibid., I., 144 cl seq.

208 Fourteen Years a Jesuit

the Jesuit Order this food was set before me again, in
various shapes.

The Jesuit Hermann Nix had a special reverence for
the Virgin Mary. He frequently said that this was de-
rived from his patron saint, the blessed Hermann Joseph,
a monk of Cologne, who lived in the Middle Ages, and
had become distinguished through a specially intimate
relation with Mary. Wynandsrade was extremely rich in
pictures and statues of Mary, sickly sweet productions
of no artistic value. Our thoughts and senses were
directed to Mary in every possible way. Orations were
made in her honour, poems had also to be composed, even
by such as, for example myself, had no trace of a
poetic gift. This superfluity of cant regarding the Virgin
re-awakened my old contradictory spirit. The pictures
of distorted and turbulent piety which I had observed at
such places of pilgrimage as Kevelaer, Lourdes, Einsiedeln,
again arose before me. They all appeared to me impious
and unwholesome. But since the Jesuit Order — indeed,
the Church herself — defended these things, I appeared
to myself wrong-headed and wicked on account of my
contrary feelings, and severe conflicts ensued.

What attitude did my spiritual guide, the Jesuit Nix,
take towards these inward conflicts ? I have already
said that he helped me over these difficulties. But how ?

Firstly, the ancient and simple pacifying method,
which has been resurrected and developed by the Jesuits,
was employed with masterly skill by this man, who was
ready for any emergency : “ All these things are tempta-
tions of the devil ; he grudges you your happiness and the
certainty of Heaven, which he himself has lost.”

Consequently Satan was conjured up. Difficulties
and misgivings concerning Faith and the Jesuit Order,
which originate in the creed and organisation of the Order,
do not exist and may not exist. The wickedness of our

Scholastic Years

209

own nature and the promptings of a personal devil are
the sole sources of all religious revolt. I repeat what I
have already said : What do not the Roman Church and
its Orders owe to the devil, that great ultramontane sheep-
dog ? The keeping alive of the belief in the Prince of
Darkness is literally a vital matter for ultramontane
Rome. Hence the enormous, yearly increasing, ultra-
montane Catholic devil-literature, with all its absurd
superstitions.

Naturally the fear of the devil also took effect in my
case, the more so as Nix deepened it by all kinds of
hints and tales of his own activity and that of other
Jesuits in succouring souls obviously attacked by the
evil one.

Nix, who was so clever in religious and psychological
matters, combined two other influences with the infernal
one : the appeal to my idealistic nature, which was made
by indicating the glory of God, and the goading on of
ascetic pride under the disguise of religion, which ensued
through dwelling on the thought that only those chosen
for high and great purposes are exposed to such attacks :
the gold of holiness must be extracted in the crucible of
suffering.

In my state of mind at that time no more was required.
I issued so triumphantly (really, so overcome) from the
battle that my nature, like a well-trained dog, obeyed for
years. A single effort of the will sufficed to quell my
strongest resistance. I marched forward over a field
strewn with the corpses of natural feelings and judgments.

Nix must have informed the General of the Order of
my victory, for towards the end of my stay at Wynandsrade
I received a letter from the General, old Father Beckx,
in which he expressed himself as greatly pleased with my
“ progress in virtue.”

The year at Wynandsrade was given over to ascetic

o

210

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

practices owing to the struggle just described. I could not
do enough in the way of self-conquest, denial of personal
inclinations and humiliations.

A lay brother suffered from consumption, combined
with a tormenting cough, and he had not the strength to
expectorate the mucus. I asked permission to be with
him a good deal, and frequently removed with my finger
the clogging mucous masses from the patient’s mouth
and pharyngeal cavity. The school routine, with its
tasks, etc., was an abomination to me. But no real
pupil of the second or first class carried out his schoolboy
tasks more zealously than I, although I was twenty-eight
years old. I begged frequently for permission to perform
kitchen-service, which was particularly exhausting because
it shortened considerably the already scanty recreation
time. The ancestral seat of my family, Hoensbroech
Castle, is situated quite close to Wynandsrade. Strangely
enough, I had never been there. I had an ardent desire
to see the fine structure, the cradle of my race. I inten-
tionally avoided going even into its vicinity during our
walks until the Jesuit Nix, having heard of this, commanded
me to go there. A sacrifice of my life which I attempted
at Wynandsrade also deserves to be mentioned. The
Jesuit asceticism (in common with the general ultramontane
asceticism) recognises and commends the sacrificing of
the individual’s life for that of another in peril when it is
more precious than his own ; i.e. God, “ the Lord of life
and death,” is begged to take the offered life and permit
the other to continue. The conditions for this heroic act
are that the sacrifice takes place with the spiritual guide’s
permission, and that the victim is then in a condition of
grace, i.e. not burdened with grievous sins. Now, during
my stay at Wynandsrade, a literary light of the German
province, the Jesuit Kreiten, was seriously and, as it was
said, hopelessly ill. My fearful spiritual troubles caused

Scholastic Years

211

me to think of death as a deliverance. I consequently
begged the Jesuit Nix for permission to offer myself as a
sacrifice for the patient, as I had learnt during the novitiate
period might be done. I received the necessary per-
mission and an injunction to offer my life to God at the
next Benediction (an evening service at which the mon-
strance with the consecrated host is exposed). Words
cannot express the ardour with which I offered myself,
and the earnestness with which I begged God, 'Who was
present (as I believed) in the host, to take my poor life,
spare me superhuman struggles, and permit me (as I
thought) to enter into the certainty of eternal life. But
I am still alive. I will return to this event when dis-
cussing my present relation to belief in God and His
providence.

I underwent bodily discipline also ; I scourged myself
and, with the permission of my spiritual guide, Nix, wore a
penitential girdle more often during my time at Wynands-
rade than at any other period of my Jesuit life, although
my body endured enough mortification owing to the
continual sleeplessness arising from inner struggles.

The most severe discipline I underwent was due to
the prohibition to give any outward hint of my inner
suffering. Letters to my mother and others had to speak
of happiness and contentment with my calling, whilst
the feeling of despair inwardly tormented me. During
visits which I received a few times, owing to the nearness
of some relations — my mother also visited me there — I
had to hide the tumult of my soul and its torment under a
cheerful aspect and calm manner. When such an attitude
seemed to me insincere, Nix’s stereotyped reply was,
“ All that you are experiencing of despair and disgust
is not due to yourself. The sensations arc due to the
devil. Your better self recognises its happiness and
rejoices in it.” Even to-day I shudder with horror when

212 Fourteen Years a Jesuit

I think of the “ happiness ” and the “ joy ” which I then
felt.

On account of its ascetic and religious aspect, I must
here briefly touch on an event, the already-mentioned
pilgrimage to the relics at Aix-la-Chapelle, which occurred
during my stay at Wynandsrade.

I passed a dreadful night before the day on which the
pilgrimage was made ; my body and soul were almost
in a state of collapse. I supplicated the Jesuit Nix to
allow me to remain at home. “ No, certainly not ; the
relics will help you.” I knelt, stood, and sat for hours
with the other scholastics in the burning sun amongst
thousands of pilgrims gazing, with prayer and song, up
at the gallery of the Cathedral of Aix-la-Chapelle, where
the relics were shown by turns — Christ’s swaddling clothes,
a vest belonging to the Virgin Mary, etc. Verily “ out of
the depths ” in the fear and distress of my soul have I
cried to the Master and His saints. I shed tears of the
bitterest misery in face of the relics. Fool that I was !
My remedies did not lie in the legendary rags, called the
sacred relics of Aix. My remedy would have lain in the
determination to free myself from the yoke which inherited
and cultivated superstition had placed upon me. But
how could I make such a resolution at that time when
my understanding was still in bondage ? The Jesuit Nix
praised me after my return ; the pilgrimage would draw
down God’s most bountiful blessing upon me !

I am not carrying on any religious controversy in this
book. But for that very reason I propose to write a
word about the irreligion of the system of pilgrimages and
relics. Such disorder and deception should be whipped
with lashes and scorpions out of every society calling itself
Christian. What Borne teaches her believers in this
respect is no better than what draws the Tibetans to their
Dalai-Lama and Taschi-Lama. Loretto, Rome, Treves,

Scholastic Years

213

Aix-la-Chapelle, Lourdes, etc., with their relics and mira-
culous pictures, are on the same level of human aberration
and religious degradation as Lhasa, Taschi-Lumpo, and
the Buddhist temples of the Indo-Chinese.

Christ once said, “ But the hour cometh when the true
worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in
truth. God is a spirit : and they that worship Him must
worship Him in spirit and in truth.” When will this
time come which was foretold two thousand years ago ?

The Jesuit Nix gave the annual eight days’ Exercises
just before I and the remaining scholastics of my year
left Wynandsrade. An instruction connected with them
may be mentioned, which strongly exposes the arrogant
and egotistical Moloch spirit of the Order.

Nix wished to show what thankfulness and, conse-
quently, what self-sacrifice we owed the Order. It fed,
clothed, supported and taught us. It invested us with
respect, tlrrew open to us the doors of the highest circles
of society, for a Jesuit was held in honour everywhere ;
in short, we owed what we were and, still more, what we
should be to the Order ; consequently it was our duty,
etc. The theory seemed to me very disputable. For,
apart from the fact that I — the consideration was not
inspired by pride — should have been respected in the
world without the Jesuit Order, it occurred to me that,
in return for the nourishment, clothing and lodging which
the Order gave us, I and the others sacrificed our body
and soul, indeed our whole being — will, understanding
and feelings — unreservedly, and that what the Order gave
us was amply counterbalanced by this sacrifice. I expressed
my thoughts to Nix, and received the answer, “ Dear
brother, you forget one thing : God, Who has called you
and the others for all eternity to the Jesuit Order, has
only given you body and soul, understanding and will,
that you may employ these gifts in the service of the

214

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

Order. Through God’s predestination, your body and
soul are, therefore, not so much your property as that
of the Order.” My mind was satisfied with this answer.
This is a striking proof of my spiritual narrow-mindedness
at that time.

In the summer of 1881 I went to Blyenbeck, which my
father had placed at the disposal of the Jesuit Order
after its banishment from Germany. I was to study
philosophy there for two years.

It was with a strange sensation that I crossed the
threshold and court of the ancient castle where in my
childhood and youth I had stayed so frequently, and
whence I had gone for happy rides and taken part in many
delightful hunting parties. I was to live there no longer
as the son of the house, in the best rooms, but as a brother
of the Society of Jesus, one amongst thirty or forty, high
up under the roof, exposed to summer heat and winter
cold, as at Exaeten, and with five, six, and even more to
share rooms which, even through their outer decorations,
stucco ceilings and baroque chimney-pieces, reminded me of
other things than the life of the Order and of a scholastic.

I did not find it easy to accustom myself to so com-
pletely altered a situation and to live as a member of the
Order, who had renounced the world, in the same place
where I had previously ruled as the son of the house and
given myself up to pleasure. Every walk in the vicinity,
which abounded in woods and heaths, was full of memories
for me : here I had amused myself with my brothers and
sisters on horse and foot, had played “ robbers and police ”
with them ; there I had shot foxes, here snipe, there
rabbits, and here roebuck. It required considerable deter-
mination to banish the pictures which arose and to let
bygones be bygones. But this was done. And I can also
testify to the fact that, in the face of these difficult relations,
I consistently and resolutely showed the earnest desire.

Scholastic Years

215

combined with self-sacrifice to follow the ideal which I
still perceived in the life of the Order and the Society of
Jesus. At Blyenbeck my Superior, the Jesuit Miller,
also informed me that he had told the General, in the
secret “ second catalogue,” “ that I had made good
progress in virtue and was a homo spiritualise a man
aiming at spirituality.”

During the second year of my stay at Blyenbeck I
had to make the abdicatio bonorum, renunciation of
property.

According to the statutes of the Order,* the renuncia-
tion of property should really be made during the second
year of the novitiate, and only custom, at least in the
German Province of the Order, had made it usual for this
act to be performed in the fourth year.

I renounced my fortune for religious poverty with
complete resignation. Fortunately, only resignation of
the right of enjoying and disposing of property is
connected with this first act of renunciation ; complete
renunciation of property is only connected with the taking
of the last vows. I was consequently able, after leaving
the Order, to receive back at least a portion of my property
from my eldest brother, in whose possession it had
remained.

I also took my first step on the way to the priesthood
at Blyenbeck, as I received, from an Indian bishop staying
there on a visit, with the remaining scholastics of my
year, the so-called four minor ordinations ( ordines minores).
Since the “ minores ” are only a first step to the sacrament
of priestly consecration, and impose no obligations on the
consecrated person, I can pass over the consecration
ceremony. I did not even receive the outer sign of the
four ordinations, the tonsure on the back of the head, for
I had already had a natural tonsure there for years.

* Exam, gen., IV., 2 ; Constit. III., 1, § 7, 25.

2l6

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

I finished my philosophical studies at Blyenbeck in
July, 1883, and was sent to Ditton Hall, in England, to
study scholastic theology for lour years.

Wynandsrade and Ditton Hall, the beginning and end
of my scholastic period, were of decisive importance for
my inner life. At Wynandsrade false asceticism succeeded
in strengthening me in my wavering religious views ; at
Ditton Hall the old difficulties, increased by new ones,
arose with greater violence. I there fought the dreadful
fight which inflicted lasting wounds (in the Jesuit ultra-
montane sense) on my soul. Through these the heart-blood
of my inherited and acquired Catholic life gradually flowed
until there was no longer any left, and I had to search out
the way to new life.

I have only unhappy recollections of Ditton Hall. It
was internally and externally a hell to me.

The ugly house is situated in a hideous neighbourhood,
surrounded by large chemical factories (Widnes, St. Helens,
etc.), which destroy all vegetation for miles around with
their poisonous fumes. In summer and winter the dead
trees stretch out their withered branches like ghosts into
the murky air which, black and dirty through smoke and
thick vapour, is but rarely illuminated and warmed by
the sun. When the west wind was blowing from the fac-
tories (as was usually the case), the house was filled with
an unwholesome odour mingled with soot. On our walks
we saw hardly anything but factory squalor, and the
paths we trod were black with slag and coal. By way of
comfort for the prevailing depression and repulsiveness,
we were informed that infectious diseases and harmful
bacilli and bacteria could not get a hold there. Head-
aches and throat troubles occurred frequently, however.
I suffered from almost chronic hoarseness.

The outer hell might have been endurable. But the
inner one !

Scholastic Years

217

In the first place, I must recall my Superior at that
time, lor he made the hell as hot as possible lor me.

A change ol Rectors occurred a lew weeks alter my
arrival at Ditton Hall. The lormer Rector, the Jesuit
Hovel, was chosen as assistant to the General ol the
Order in 1883 at the General Congregation sitting at
Rome, and the Jesuit Wiedemann took his place as
Rector ol Ditton Hall. Gossiping, mean, revengelul,
suspicious, vain, crafty and thoroughly lalse, he had
every characteristic which enables a Head to render
life miserable to his subordinates. The antipathy was
mutual ; but whilst I endeavoured honestly to recognise
and respect in this person, repugnant to me from the very
bottom of my soul, the “ Superior placed over me by
God,” he gave free rein to his aversion. One must know
the absolute dependence of the Jesuit subordinates upon
the Jesuit Superior to estimate what a jealous Superior,
furnished in addition with all the idiosyncrasies just men-
tioned, means to his subordinates — what it means, for
example, to be obliged to make a Statement of Conscience
to such a man. I met with nothing but disparaging words
of contempt from this Jesuit when I conscientiously
opened my soul to him, and spoke of the waters of afflic-
tion and despair which had crept up and threatened to
engulf my reason and my will, and when I laid bare the
almost indescribable pain within me. I was conscious
of his mistrust everywhere. I had always pursued my
studies with indefatigable application, and continued to
do so at Ditton Hall. Wiedemann accused me of idle-
ness, and tried to make others share his opinion of me.
I hate the Jesuit Nix ; the Jesuit Wiedemann does not
deserve as much. With his miserable paltriness and
hollowness, he deserves contempt. I do not believe, indeed,
that my course of development would have been retarded
lastingly through any influence whatever, and that any-

2l8

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

thing would have prevented me from standing where
I stand to-day ; but if a better man than the Jesuit
Wiedemann had had the guidance of my soul during the
four years of my theological training, the severance effected
later from the Order and Church would perhaps have
taken place more quietly and with less bitterness.

In spite of his aversion to myself, the Jesuit Wiede-
mann exploited me and my worldly connections when
Jesuit interests came into question.

One of my fellow-scholastics, Brother Cecil Longridge,
had been an English artillery officer in India before he
entered the Order. He retained a liking for artillery
problems, such as the science of projectiles, and, in spite
of dogmatics and moral theology, he was particularly
interested in the construction of a new cannon on the
wire system. Wiedemann sent for me one day and
charged me to write to my cousin, General von Loe, who
was then the General in command of the 8th Army Corps
at Coblence, send him Brother Longridge’s constructional
drawings, and beg him to have them tested by experts.
Perhaps, Wiedemann said, there might be something in
the idea, which would be very advantageous to the Order.
I was to write the letter quite on my own initiative, so
that there should be no suspicion that the Order as such
had any interest in the invention of the cannon. Some
months later I received a friendly answer from Walter
Loe saying that he had had the matter looked into, but
it did not seem to be practical. Possibly further details
regarding the Jesuit cannon are to be found in the records
of the office of the commanding General at Coblence.
Unless I am mistaken, the cannon was then offered to
the English War Office with the same negative results.

My theology course brought the priesthood within
appreciable distance, and with my theological studies
came the duty of allowing myself to be submerged in the

Scholastic Years

219

dogmas of the Church. Then, on a sudden, there gaped
beneath my feet the abyss, into the sinister darkness
of which my eyes had already glanced fugitively, though
kept back hitherto from closer observation by my
well-disciplined will.

The essence of the Roman Catholic priesthood, its
mystically religious climax, lies in the power of trans-
forming bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus
Christ. Through this power the priest is the originator
of “ the true, actual, and real presence of Christ in the
altar sacrament.”

The belief in the lasting presence of Christ in the
consecrated host preserved in the tabernacles of Catholic
churches is one of the most potent sources of Catholic
piety ; millions derive from it daily vital energy and
strength in bodily and spiritual troubles. And, indeed,
for the individual who believes that he may have inter-
course and conversation with the all-good and all-powerful
God as with a friend present in the body, the sorrow of
life loses much of its weight. It is not, however, this
belief— which rests like a transfiguring gleam over the
life of the Catholic Christian, and can give no why or
wherefore concerning the presence of Christ in the host,
but takes the presence for granted without making diffi-
culties — of which I speak here. The dogma which terrified
me was that which sought a foundation in theological
scholarship for the belief in the real presence of Christ.

The dogmatic teaching of the Church, which is, how-
ever, unknown in its details to the mass of believers, is
as follows : —

1. After the priest’s words, which he pronounces in
the name and, as it were, the person of Christ over bread
and wine (generally only during Mass), “ This is My
body ” and “ This is the cup of My blood,” the nature
and substance of bread and wine disappear, and the

220

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

nature and substance of Christ’s flesh and blood take
their place (transubstantiation). The “ accidents ” of the
bread and wine (form, colour, smell, taste, and weight)
remain, however, so that the human senses can perceive
no change. The senses only perceive bread and wine as
before, although in reality there is no more bread and
wine present.

2. The entire body of Christ (skin, hair, nails, bones,
all the limbs and also the genitals) is present in the con-
secrated host, and consequently (per concomitcmtiam)
also the blood ; and the whole amount of Christ’s blood
is present in the consecrated wine, and consequently (per
concomitantiam ) also the whole body of Christ.

3. The whole body and all the blood of Christ are
not only in the entire host and the whole amount of
wine, but also in each separate part of the bread and
wine, so that when consecrated bread and consecrated
wine are divided into thousands of particles and small
drops, the whole body and all the blood of Christ are
present in every particle and every little drop, and that
without fresh words of consecration, but only through
the physical process of division.

4. Mastication of Christ’s body in the mouth of the
receiver is consequently also impossible, because a fresh
body of Christ occurs simultaneously at every division,
whether it occurs through the teeth or by other means.

5. Although a natural decomposition of the con-
secrated bread and the consecrated wine is impossible,
since the substances of bread and wine are no longer
present, the consecrated host and consecrated wine are
nevertheless also subject, like other food, to the natural
laws of decomposition, so that, in the recipient’s stomach,
for example, the decomposition of the swallowed host
and the swallowed wine takes place in exactly the same
manner. The substance of the flesh and blood of Christ

Scholastic Years

221

disappears at the commencement of the decomposition
and the substances of bread and wine again take its
place.

6. Consecrated bread and consecrated wine have the
same action as ordinary bread and wine, although the
substances of bread and wine are no longer present, so
that we may satisfy our hunger with consecrated
bread, i.e. with Christ’s flesh, and become intoxicated
with consecrated wine, i.e. with Christ’s blood, as with
other bread and wine.

7. The priest retains the power of consecration per-
manently, and it cannot be alienated from him. No sin,
not even apostasy, can take it away, so that I still retain
this miraculous power. In addition, the priest is not
fettered by time and place in exercising his extraordinary
power ; it is also at his command when desired outside
Mass. Every priest can consequently transform all the
supply of bread in every baker’s shop, and all the supply
of wine in every wine-store, into Christ’s flesh and blood,
provided that the bread-shops and wine-stores contain
natural bread and natural wine, and that the words of
consecration be spoken in or immediately outside the
shop or store, consequently not at any considerable dis-
tance from either.

This miraculous sacerdotal power is also illustrated
by “ facts.” I will only relate two stories, which were
current during my theological term of study. During the
French Revolution a priest apostasised, but was beheaded
in spite of this. In his rage, and with blasphemous design,
he changed the bread of all the bakers’ shops which he
passed in the Parisian streets on his way to the scaffold into
the body of Christ. A priest addicted to wine, who could
not forgo his early morning drink, transformed an entire
cask in his wine-cellar into the blood of Christ, so as to
be able to drink out of it before Mass without breaking

222 Fourteen Years a Jesuit

the strict rule not to partake of anything before Mass.
For the consecrated wine, owing to the fact that it is
no longer wine but Christ’s blood, does not belong to
the things which may not be taken before Mass or Com-
munion.

This is the essential purport of the dogma of the
“ real presence of Christ in the altar sacrament.” “ This
is an hard saying ; who can hear it ? ” has seemed to
me to apply to this doctrine ever since I came to know it.

I need not dwell on the seven points named above to
make it clear why fear — indeed, horror — seized me as to
their contents, and that finally unbelief supplanted fear
and horror. Is this supposed to be the meaning of that
sweet memorial feast, which Christ instituted at the last
meal He took with His disciples ? Was that breaking of
bread and proffering of the wine cup supposed to have
such a brutal meaning ?

The nearer the day approached on which I was to be
equipped with this priestly power, the more violent be-
came my opposition and the more dreadful my spiritual
anguish. When the Bishop of Liverpool really conse-
crated me and twelve fellow-scholastics to the priesthood
in July, 1886, in the Ditton Hall church, scepticism had
already seized the best part of my soul, and I allowed the
ceremonies of the consecration to be enacted over me
whilst in a condition impossible to describe. In vain I
told the trouble of my soul to my spiritual guide. It was
always the same : “ It is the devil who is tempting you ;
you must disregard all this.”

How I suffered when, a few days after my ordination,
I read my first Mass in the old castle of my ancestors,
Blyenbeck, whither my superiors had sent me, before the
whole of my family (mother, brothers, sisters, and other
relations) ! I had even hastened to old Father Oswald,
who happened to be at Blyenbeck, and whom I then

Scholastic Years

223

trusted, on the previous evening and in the morning just
before the commencement of Mass, and described my
anguish of conscience with bitter tears — truly tragic
tears. He also could only lay the blame on the devil.
So, in reality, I approached the altar driven by the
“ devil,” and “ transformed ” bread and wine into the
body and blood of Christ.

For six whole years I bore the burden of this priest-
hood with continually increasing anguish. Nevertheless,
I tried to carry out even the hardest duties of a priest
connected with the dogma of Christ’s real presence. I
will only give one very striking example.

According to the doctrine of the Church, it is the duty
of the priest to swallow the consecrated host when he
observes that it is getting decomposed — possibly owing
to dampness in the tabernacles, or for other reasons — if
he is not positive that it is already quite decomposed,
and consequently that Christ is no longer present in it.
When I was hearing confessions before reading Mass one
morning in a parish where I was assisting in the priestly
duties, as I so often did, a woman confessed she had
not swallowed the host on receiving the Communion just
before, because the thought of also swallowing Christ’s
genitals had been too dreadful ; she had spat the host
into her prayer-book ; it was still there. After I had
tried in vain to persuade her to swallow it, it seemed to
me that I could do nothing else but swallow the expector-
ated host myself. I told the half-distracted woman to
leave the prayer-book with the host behind when she
went from the confessional. I then took the host, satur-
ated as it was with saliva, and pressed into a pulpy mass,
from the prayer-book and swallowed it, together with
that which I consecrated at the Mass I read directly after.

This incident also illustrates the troubles caused
amongst believers when the pious but vague belief in the

224

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

presence of Christ in the host begins to be supplanted
by a knowledge of dogma.

Two other fundamental doctrines of the Roman
Catholic belief troubled me during my theological course
— the doctrine of the Holy Trinity and the doctrine of
original sin.

The doctrine of the Trinity is an absurdity tinged
with Buddhism and Hellenism, and the dogma of
original sin caused by the fall of Adam and Eve is also
an absurdity combined with anthropomorphic and crude
conceptions.

It was a long time before I attained to such recognition.
But once I had done so, it became, and is still, incompre-
hensible to me why every clear and religiously disposed
person does not discard both these doctrines.*

It is outside the scope of this book to go into these
“ thoroughly Christian ” dogmas and expose their
absurdity. It is sufficient for me to affirm that the doc-
trines of the Trinity and original sin became the outlets
through which I passed from ultramontane Jesuit night
and bondage to light and liberty.

There is still one peculiarity of the scholasticate in
particular, and of the whole Jesuit existence in general,
to be mentioned.

The Jesuit scholastic is kept in complete ignorance
regarding the history and mission of his Order. He does
not know, and must not know, that great abuses have
occurred within the Jesuit Order. He only hears praise
and glorification ; only light, and no shade, is shown

* I have been obliged to write this word of renunciation of Catholic dogma
so as to explain the breaking down of my belief. I do not intend to discuss religious
polemics. On the contrary, it is necessary that I should explain that I condemn
wrangling of the kind when it occurs in an unlovely and wounding form, as it
does only too frequently. Every religion and every Christian belief has cause
to utter a mea maxima culpa in face of reason and humanity, owing to the wilder-
ness of absurdities surrounding their dogmas and customs ; the Catholic religion
is by no means the only culprit in this respect.

Scholastic Years

225

him. He lives in complete ignorance of facts. He has
entered with the firm belief in the supermundane char-
acter of the Order and in the almost divine nature of its
foundation ; and this delusion is kept alive in him. We
may excuse the fact that attacks by adversaries are not
given him to read, although such concealment does
not point to honourable dealing and confidence. But
even admonishing and warning voices from within the
Order itself, which we have found and shall still find
making themselves audible at every period, must not
reach his ear. He hears only the bombastic, vainglorious,
official stories of the Order, which are stories but not
history. I am positive that even the suppression of the
Order by Clement XIV. would be concealed if it were
possible. As it is impossible, it is put down as an aberra-
tion on the Pope’s part.

I can give a striking example from my own experience
of wilful exclusion of historical truth in regard to the
Suppression : —

Once, when performing the duty of reader in the
refectory, the Rector, the Jesuit Miller, gave me the
third volume of Dollinger’s Beitrdge just published,
in which the Memoirs of the Jesuit Cordara were
contained, with the observation that the Memoirs
were to be read at dinner, and I was consequently to
study them, i.e. familiarise myself with the contents.
Scarcely half an hour later, before I had found time to
glance at the book, I was called to the Provincial’s Socius,
the Jesuit Kurte, who informed me, by order of the Pro-
vincial, that Cordara’s Memoirs were not to be read,
and I was to return Dollinger’s book to the Rector. The
Rector received me with visible embarrassment, mur-
mured something about a “ mistake ” having occurred,
and took back the ill-omened book. Cordara had, as
we know, written with great love for his Order, but can-

p

226

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

didly on the causes of its suppression. We scholastics
must remain in ignorance of the frank recognition of
abuses by such a prominent Jesuit as Cordara.

The same thing happens with Jesuits as with most
ultramontane Catholics. As they hear nothing of the
infamous actions and grave offences against religious,
political, social and intellectual life of the Papal system,*
so in like manner the Jesuits do not hear of the great
faults and deficiencies of their Order. And as hundreds,
indeed thousands, of books and writings radiate the
undimmed glory of “ godliness ” over and around the
Papacy, so do innumerable Jesuits spread the same glory
around their Order. Fawning flattery, as far removed
from truth as the poles from one another, forms the daily
food of Loyola’s disciples.

So long as the Jesuit looks upon this artificial light as
the real light of history, he considers himself wicked and
corrupt if he doubts the excellence of his Order, and he
applies to himself pitilessly and effectually the theory of
the temptation of the devil, which has become incor-
porated into his body and blood, as soon as his own reason
and natural understanding raise their voices. It is
generally only an accident that opens his eyes a little and
lets him see facts in their true light. I must speak later
of the accidents which tore the veil from my own eyes.

At the present time it seems incomprehensible to me
that I could have lived for years in such implicit faith.
At that time implicit faith and blind and naive belief
constituted the very air which I and my fellow-scholastics
breathed.

One of the worst of the many crimes committed by
the Order against its members is that it not only conceals
the truth regarding its own history, but deceives them
with “ historical ” untruths.

Cf. my work, Das Papsttum , etc.

CHAPTER XXI

THE SCHOLASTIC STUDIES

The scholasticate, as its name indicates, is the young
Jesuit’s period of study, divided under the headings of
the Humanities, Philosophy, and Philology.

All studies are based on the official Ratio atque Insti-
tutio studiorum Societatis Jesu.*

One criticism of this Scheme of Study has already been
given in Chapters IV. and V. There I showed how back-
ward and unmindful of the requirements of the times
are the school instruction and education of the Jesuit
Order, based on a Scheme of Study which has continued
unaltered from the sixteenth to the nineteenth century
(1832). I have also shown that the “ improvements ”
introduced in 1832 cannot be described as a real advance
or suitable adaptation to the requirements of modern
times. How can a Scheme of Study dating from 1599,
which still holds good in 1910, and was for the first time
after two hundred and thirty- three years subjected to a
few additional and trivial alterations, pretend to the very
slightest value ?

We must not, however, forget that its value is by no
means to be appraised according to its effect on the out-
side world or in the sphere of knowledge. The Jesuit
Order has only one criterion for its institutions : the
interests of the Order. This “ gauge ” is also the founda-
tion of the Scheme of Study, and, judged by this, its value

* Inst . S.J , (Pvomoe, 1870), LU 4-09-549.

227

228

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

is inestimable. For in its Scheme of Study the Jesuit
Order possesses a powerful implement with which to
guard its members from enlightenment, and contrives
that it shall reach them only in such measure as is
necessary and useful for the purposes of the Order.

I. — THE HUMANISTIC STUDIES

My personal experiences in the college at Wynandsrade
and at the Jesuit educational institution at Feldkirch
show the methods adopted in the humanistic studies of
the Order, and how the pupils are allowed, after an abso-
lutely inadequate training, to be appointed at their insti-
tutions to teach the young pupils entrusted to the care
of the Order. Attention was also called to the important
fact characterising the “ humanism ” of the Jesuits, that
the Order does not of its own initiative give a thorough
professional training in scholarship to the pupils intended
to teach humanistic subjects, but only when compelled
by external circumstances (i.e. the imperative decree of
the State that teachers shall have undergone a professional
training in philology and passed examinations in it) to
comply with this most primary requirement of humanistic
training. This demand became a matter of life or death
to the Order. They made a virtue of necessity, swallowed
the hateful command under compulsion, and sent their
scholastics to university lectures on philology. But for
State interference the Order would have continued to
adhere to its own “ philological ” methods.

I have also dwelt briefly on the fruits of Jesuit scholar-
ship, but it still remains to answer the general question :
"What has the Jesuit Order accomplished in scholarship
since its beginning ? The result is an absolute blank,
and only the untruthful Jesuit boastfulness could speak
of “ achievements,” and even brag of them. Is it, indeed,

The Scholastic Studies

229

an achievement if here and there a Jesuit succeeds in
writing a serviceable book on philology, if a Greek or
Latin classic is edited by a Jesuit with not unserviceable
annotations ?

The Jesuit Order has existed for nearly four hundred
years ; for nearly four hundred years it has frequently
had excellent human material to mould by its curriculum,
which lays special stress on the humanities. What,
then, is the result of this four hundred years’ activity ?
The list of those Jesuits and their works worthy of men-
tion in the history of scholarship would not fill more than
half an octavo page. No great men, no pioneers, no
reformers are to be found among them ; they are but
average scholars, such as may be met with by the hundred
at universities and colleges, with this difference only,
that universities and colleges produce many eminent as
well as average scholars.

Involuntarily the Jesuits emphasise this discreditable
fact by their ceaseless boasting, if at any time or place any
Jesuit does achieve something in the domain of scholar-
ship. The Jesuit Balde with his Latin Odes, the Jesuit
Fox with his Commentary on Demosthenes’ de Corona,
and a few others, are the stock pieces continually produced
from the “ philological ” Jesuit storehouses which have
been four hundred years in filling. Does not this throw a
strong light on the miserable poverty of these storehouses ?

The primary cause of the whole worthlessness of Jesuit
scholarship is revealed by the fact that the Constitutions
of the Order expressly define humanistic studies as mere
auxiliaries to theology, not as independent pursuits :
“ Because theoretical and practical theology requires a
knowledge of the Humanities, Latin, Greek, and Hebrew,
the requisite number of competent professors in these
subjects are to be appointed.” *

* Const, iv., 12, 2.

230

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

These few remarks, with the criticisms in Part I., will
suffice to place in their true light the methods and results
of the philological studies of the Jesuit Order.

But “ Rhetoric ” too is included among the humanistic
studies of the Jesuits. This name is given to the highest
of the classes for the humanistic training of the schol-
astics. On this I must make a few comments, not because
theoretical and practical training in eloquence offers any
peculiar features, since it corresponds to that principal
branch of Jesuit activity, its preaching labours, but because
in the “Rhetoric” class classics too are read, and the
attitude of the Order towards the vernacular classics there
finds expression. That is why I must once more discuss
this point, so • characteristic of the Jesuit spirit and of its
influence on its young pupils. In consequence of its inter-
national character the Jesuit Order holds aloof from all
national literature. This fact is quite obvious from the
wording of the Ratio and from all Jesuit writings on
education. But the aversion of “ German ” Jesuits to
German classics is especially keen, and amounts to blind
hatred, displayed in brutal fashion.

In illustration I quote the utterances of two “ German ”
Jesuits, both of whom, though for different reasons, en-
joy considerable reputation in German Catholic circles,
and who exercise a profound influence on those many
millions.

The Jesuit Baron Ludwig von Hammerstein, one of
the most prolific and widely read popular authors of
Catholic Germany, says, in his work Das Preussische
Schulmonopol mit besonderer Rucksicht auf die Gymna-
sien : —

“ In modern schools, as has been said before, enthusiasm is
naturally centred on the German classics and on the intellectual
sphere in which they move. Goethe claims the first place among
them. And what is the ideal that is held up to the youth of

The Scholastic Studies

231

Germany in Goethe ? Goethe himself shows it us in the description
which he gives of himself and his doings in the character of Faust :

Ich bin nur durch die Welt gerannt ,

Ein jedlGdiist ex griff icli bei den Flaaren ;

Was nicht genikjte Hess ich fahren ,

Was mix entwischte liess ich ziehen*

“ So this is Goethe ! How he £ seized every pleasure ’ may be
seen by the catalogue of his wanton loves, which he pursued as a
boy, as a youth, after his marriage, and as an old man of over
eighty years, with married and unmarried women, choosing his
victims among factory girls, barmaids, actresses, pastors’ daughters,
noble spinsters, etc. In this sense he wrote in his Zahrne Xenien :

Ich vounsche mix eine hubsche Frau,

Die nicht dies ndhme gar zu genau ,

Doch obex zugleich am besten verstdnde,

Wie ich mich selbst am besten bejande.

“ Such is Goethe ! Such is the ideal brought before our school-
boys nowadays. . . . The best known only of his love adventures
supply a whole catalogue. Gretchen, Friederike, Lotte, Charlotte
von Stein, Corona Schroter, Christiane Vulpius, Minna Herzlieb, etc.
Such, then, is Goethe, the man who occupies the post of honour
among the heroes of our literature, this the hero whom the Minister
of Public Instruction, von Gossler, holds up to the reverent admira-
tion of the young, this the poet whose most valuable poems ‘it
should be a national duty for every man of culture to retain in his
memory as an imperishable treasure,’ a duty which lies on the
schools to accomplish. This is the man whom Dr. Falk, Minister
of Public Instruction, recommends, not only as a model of language
and style, but as a teacher of c true Christian, national and humane
education.’ This, then, is the man who is to inspire the hearts
of the young Prussian scholars with enthusiasm. No wonder, then,
that unbelief and immorality prevail at those schools. Of course,
nothing is further from my mind than to depreciate the excellence
of some of Goethe’s poems. On the contrary, I prize this excellence, -
but I maintain that what is beautiful and fascinating in Goethe

* Faust , II., Act V.

232

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

makes him more dangerous and pernicious as an ideal for youth.
No one will drink poison offered in a basin filled with dish-water
or soap-suds, but poison in a beaker of wine of Cyprus or Muscatel
is dangerous, and all the more so if the wine is offered by a com-
petent judge as an ideal potion, the partaking of which is supposed
to be the 4 national duty of every person of culture/ This is the
case with Goethe, the principal ideal of the modern school.

“ I will also devote a few short remarks to his colleagues Schiller
and Lessing. Schiller is at any rate a less unsuitable ideal to set
before the young than Goethe ; still, I cannot regard even him
as suitable. His Rduber and his Fiesco will, to say the least, not
instil conservative principles into the youthful mind, nor yet Telly
with its glorification of tyrannicide. It is well known that Schiller
also passed through a phase of laxity in regard to the seventh
commandment. Youth will hardly be fired with enthusiasm for
Christianity and pure morals by hearing Schiller exclaim in his
Gotter Griechenlands : —

Da ilir noch die schone Welt regieret ,

An der Freude leichtem Gangelband,

Selige Geschlechter noch gefiihret ,

Sclidne Wesen aus dem FabeUand !

Ach , da euer Wonnedienst noch glanzte ,

Wie gam anders , anders war es da ! etc.

“ This, indeed, sounds rather more alluring than the precepts
of the Cross and the Crucified. . . . Thus Schiller viewed the
Christian moral law and Christian monotheism ! Those who are
versed in German literature know well enough that such utterances
are not isolated. Certainly Schiller could strike other chords in
the human heart, but he is on that account no less dangerous an
ideal to set before the young. The man who won their hearts
by the 4 Song of the Bell/ or 4 Wallenstein/ will seduce them
all too easily from the paths of faith and Christian morality
by his Rduber , Kabde und Liebe , Gotter Griechenlands , and
such like.

44 With regard to Lessing, I observe that Emilia Galotti, with
its atmosphere of libertinage, and Minna von Barnhelm, with its
love dalliance, are more suited for the training of novel-heroes.

The Scholastic Studies

233

blase worldlings and idlers, than serious and high-principled youths.
Nor is Lessing’s passion for gambling exactly a qualification for
an ideal. . . . How utterly opposed to such ideals appear those
of the old school ! Whilst Lessing hungers after gold to gratify
bis gambling propensity, a St. Francis of Assisi elects extreme
poverty. Whilst Lessing endeavours by his writings to undermine
Christianity, a St. Francis Xavier, by his apostolic preaching, wins
whole kingdoms for Christ and Christian morality. Whilst Goethe
welds his life into a chain of excesses, a St. Benedict throws himself
among thorns, to overcome the temptations of the flesh by self-
inflicted suffering. Which of these two ideals was chosen with
truer pedagogic discrimination, that of the ancient schools of the
Church, or that of the modern secularising schools of the State ?
Schiller and Goethe are valuable supporters of Lessing in his active
attempts to undermine all Christianity, all faith. Schiller says :
4 What religion I follow ? Not one of those that you name. And why
none ? From love of religion.’* Schiller thus renounces all existing
objective religions, Christianity in particular, of whatever denomina-
tion. Before he had reached the age of thirty, he was completely
estranged from Christianity, and had familiarised himself with the
pantheistic doctrines of the Jew, Baruch Spinoza. Religion fur-
nished him with neither results nor convictions concerning super-
sensual matters, and even in relation to morality he held it to be
a mere substitute for general virtue, and valued it in proportion
to its effect and not for its intrinsic worth. . . . And Goethe ?
Goethe is anything we please as occasion arises — or, rather, as his
epicurean humour suggests — i.e. he is really devoid of all religious
convictions whatever. If any special obloquy is to be heaped on
Catholicism, Schiller can supply it with his Bon Carlos , his History
of the Thirty Years' War . So too Lessing, who in his Nathan , in
the famous dialogue between the Patriarch and the Templar, sets
a flattering portrait of the Catholic priesthood and Catholic morality
before the Catholic, Protestant and Jewish pupils of a German
gymnasium.

“ Thus Goethe, Schiller and Lessing are the three most bril-
liant stars in the modern German classical firmament — stars held up

* “ Welch e Religion ick bekenne ? Keine von alien ,

Die du mir nennst . Und warum lceine? Aus Religion /”

234

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

to the grateful veneration of the pupils. The heroes of the second
class mostly resemble them.” *

To the same category as the Jesuit Hammerstein belongs
the Jesuit Baumgartner. Baumgartner, a Swiss, is con-
sidered the great literary authority of the Order : poet,
essayist, critic, especially appointed by the Order to carry
on classical research. If the Jesuit Hammerstein is a
popular writer who shouts his tirades against the German
classics into the ears of the masses, the Jesuit Baum-
gartner (according to the Jesuits and German Catholics)
is the “ aestheticising, subtle critic who lays before the
reader the clarified results of his researches in his mono-
graphs on Lessing, Schiller, and Goethe.” Thus his opinion
on the classics marks with special significance the attitude
of the Jesuit Order towards the heroes of our literature.

I quote specimens of Baumgartner’s criticisms from
two of his works, Goethe und Schiller. Weimars Glanz-
periode, and Der Alte von Weimar. Both appeared as
so-called “ supplementary pamphlets ” to the Jesuit
periodical, Stimmen aus Maria-Laach. Thus the Jesuit
Order, which publishes the periodical, has identified
itself closely with these writings : —

“ . . .To whomsoever the Odes on Laura may have been
addressed, whether to the widow of Captain Vischer, in whose
house Schiller lived, or to some other similar muse, such poetry,
combined with other circumstances, presupposes a fairly wild and
dissolute life. In Mannheim, Schiller drifted into the immoral life
of the actors there, so that subsequently the experiences of stage
life in Goethe’s Wilhelm Meister were no novelty to him, but rather
came home to him as personal reminiscences. At the same time
he fell in love with Margaretha, daughter of the bookseller Schwan,
and entered into such passionate relations with Charlotte von Kalb
that finally he even urged her to a divorce. In Bauerbach he

* Das Preussische Schulmonopol , pp. 56-59, 73-81.

The Scholastic Studies

235

wooecl with foolish passion another Charlotte, the daughter of his
benefactress, von Wolzogen ; in Dresden a Fraulein Arnim cap-
tivated him. In Weimar he openly renewed his liaison with Frau
von Kalb, whilst simultaneously he thought of marrying a daughter
of Wieland, and his double love for the sisters Lengenfeld was not
exactly straightforward, until at last he won Lotte for his wife.
Certainly this was a sufficient number of adventures for a space
of ten years.

44 One of these attachments Schiller himself later called £ a
wretched passion,’ and thereby stigmatised the character of his
youth as a succession of errors. Not much weight is to be given to
the virtuous tirades in his early dramas when, while still a student
at the Karlsschule, he repeatedly extolled the Duke’s mistress,
Franziska von Hohenheim, in the most extravagant manner, as
the 4 ideal of virtue,’ though the young man knew who that Fran-
ziska was. Whilst young Goethe was inclined towards softness
and effeminacy, young Schiller appears wilder, more passionate
and impetuous. Still, he did not squander so much time in endless
sentimental correspondence with women, and never lavished such
boundless thoughts and energy on the female sex as the spoilt
darling of Frau Aja. ... No more than Goethe, did Schiller
possess any deep religious and philosophical culture. . . . He had
never thoroughly studied the philosophy of Aristotle and Plato,
not to mention that of the Middle Ages, of Descartes, Bacon, or
Leibnitz. The religious impressions and the pious faith of his child-
hood were almost entirely lost in the whirl of his stage life. He
was a freethinker. The Catholic Church was yet more of an unknown
country to him than Spinoza. His literary store of ideas dated no
further back than the shallow literature of the illuminati of those
days : the periodicals, novels, plays of a literature which was still
entirely under the influence of Rousseau, Voltaire, Diderot and the
rest of the 4 philosophers.’ Schiller certainly studied history in an
eclectic spirit, just as he happened to require matter for his dramatic
projects or for essays on other subjects. At Bauerbach he had to
make the best of the books which the librarian, his brother-in-law.
Reinhold, procured for him ; in Mannheim his theatrical worries
entirely absorbed his necessary leisure. Not until he was in Dresden
and Leipzig did his studies somewhat gain in breadth and depth.

236 Fourteen Years a Jesuit

Then he began to read Kant seriously, and investigated more
detailed works on the Thirty Years 5 War and the revolt of the
Netherlands. But even there his studies were not those of a
scholar, calmly investigating truth, but rather of a literary hack,
who rummages about for spicy historical matter in order to fill
his ‘ review 5 and earn his fee . 55 *

“ However much Goethe’s real merits demand acknowledgment,
they must not be exaggerated, as is only too often done. His
brilliant intellectual gifts, his physical strength and his length of
life, his favourable surroundings — all these were gifts not of his
own bestowal. He had for years allowed them practically or
almost entirely to lie fallow, or else squandered them on unimportant
matters. The establishment and moulding of modern classical
literature is not his work. The arduous, difficult pioneering was
accomplished by others, in the first instance by Klopstock and his
disciples, Wieland, Lessing and Herder. Goethe himself received
his most fruitful and momentous impulses from Herder. Even
talents of a lower order, like Lavater and Merck, influenced him
powerfully. Lenz, Klinger, and the other poets of the Storm and
Stress gave him considerable impetus. Wieland and Knebel had
a stimulating influence on his work up to the last. When,
absorbed in Court and State affairs at Weimar, he had
almost entirely devoted himself to the writing of prose, it was
Schiller who recalled him to the realm of poetry, and to a great
extent he owes his second prime to this stimulating intercourse.

“ In reality Goethe produced but few really classical prose
works ; these are the four novels : Wer flier's Leiden , Wilhelm
Meister's Lehrjahre , Die W ahlverwandschajten and Wilhelm Meister's
Wander jahre. , . .

‘‘Even if a torso, a fragment, may betray the hand of a master,
yet the full productive power, the genius and industry of the artist,
can only be manifested in the perfected, finished masterpiece.
In the case of Calderon and Shakespeare, it is not necessary to
collect fragments : their rounded and perfected works of art occupy
many volumes. Not so with Goethe. With him the small and
fragmentary occupies as much space, at times even more, as the
great and important.

* Goethe und Schiller . Weimars Glanzperiode } pp. 36-38.

The Scholastic Studies

237

“ Nor are Stella and Clavigo works of genius. Egmont is
a historical tragedy swamped by a love story ; Gotz , in spite
of the far-reaching influence which it exercised on the history
of literature, is an unsuccessful imitation of Shakespeare. Even
the three versions of the latter show the intrinsic weakness of
the tragedy. Mahomet and Tancred are Voltaire’s property,
not Goethe’s. During the eighty-two years of his life, despite
his great genius, Goethe produced only three genuine, superb,
intellectually great, artistically perfect dramatic works : Iphigenie ,
Tasso , Faust.

“ Of the longer epics, one only is perfect : Hermann und Doro-
thea. Reinecke Fuchs is a mere compilation ; Achilleis a feeble
fragment. There still remain the elegies, epigrams and aphorisms,
the W estostlicher Divan , the ballads and lyrics. Of these last more
than a third are occasional poems, far more than a third love poems.
The Divan again is more than half love poetry. If on the one
hand we set aside the didactic poems, on the other hand the erotic,
not much remains : God, the World, the Fatherland, Art, History —
in fact, all that is ideal — receive but scant treatment. : ; . The
prevailing fundamental principle of this poet, with all his brilliant
gifts, is not inspiration emanating from above, nor aspiring thither ;
not the Christian ideal, but the mighty Eros of pagan antiquity,
a love of life, a lust for enjoyment, that takes no thought of God
and eternity ; a sensual love, portrayed in its full vernal magic
and youthful charm, as well as in the gloomy storm, the dreary
disillusionment it leaves in the human heart after a brief delight.

“ There can hardly be a doubt about this in respect to Goethe’s
lyrical work. Apart from a small fraction, it is one continuous
love song, chanting the bliss and rose of love in all its phases, in
every harmony and melody, key and modulation. The elegies
carry the theme to the boundary-line, where realism ceases to be
attractive ; his diary and the W alpurgisnacht go far beyond; The
four novels deal with the same theme in a wider frame. Ardent
love yearnings, joys, woes — c the atmosphere of a woman’s man,’
to quote Fr. Vischer — pervades the whole with sultry oppressive-
ness. Faust is heavily charged with the same atmosphere, for it
is on Gretchen and Helen only that all Faust’s thoughts and desires
are concentrated. Tasso is a love dreamer like Faust and Werther.

238 Fourteen Years a Jesuit

Even Hermann und Dorothea is not exempt from that erotic
atmosphere. In Goethe’s hands, Gotz finally becomes a drama
of adultery, Egmont a love tragedy ; Achilles himself is a love-sick
enthusiast. In the Grosskophta seduction, and in Stella bigamy, are
presented in detail ; in Pandora the foolish ecstasy of an old man
in love is extolled. In his youthful carnival’s jests the poet’s
passion finds vent in coarse ribaldry, in his musical plays it undu-
lates gracefully in charming duets, in his Marienbad elegy and
at the end of Faust it even endeavours yearningly to dally its way
into heaven. . . . If he happens to be reading Rousseau, he raves
about nature ; if it is Voltaire, of civilisation ; if he reads Spinoza,
he obtains an intuition of God which enables him to see in each
separate existence the universal whole ; if he hears of Leibnitz, he
sees Monads everywhere ; and if it is Aristotle, the Monads become
Entelechies: But nowhere do we meet with a clear, matter-of-fact
definition of Nature, knowledge and God, intuitive apprehension
of God and the real meaning of Monads and Entelechies. Goethe
made just as much fun of Kant’s Categorical Imperative as of
Fichte’s Ego and Non-Ego ; and Schelling’s little book on the Kabirs
was more interesting to him than his natural philosophy. He was
no more a consistent follower of Spinoza than of Schelling or Hegel.
He abhorred not only all philosophical idealism, but any system
whatever. . . . His poetry, seen in the light reflected upon it by
his fife, appears a mere glorifying of the most commonplace
material existence, petty vanity, foolish stage adventures and love
affairs, egotistic self -admiration and sensual love of enjoyment ;
it shows no comprehension of the life of nations, of the sublimity
of divine revelation and of the Church, no trace of fear or love of
God, such as inspired the minstrels of the Middle Ages. This
egotistical demigod no longer stands before us alone, but surrounded
by a whole swarm of adoring followers, who have long ago rent
asunder all the diplomatic cobwebs of mystery in which the old
man draped himself, who deify his sensual love songs as the
highest and truest poetry, his realism as the loftiest outlook on
life, his paganism as purified 4 Christianity,’ his unpardonable
moral aberrations as ideals of life, who recommend the very essence
of his errors as the highest development of our national culture to
be studied and copied by all.

The Scholastic Studies

239

“ . . . Surely the danger to religion and morals lurking
therein needs no further exposition. Goethe’s poetry and life
speak for themselves. Even if conscientious teachers expound but
a very limited selection of his works, this offers but slight pro-
tection, as his works are in universal circulation, are obtainable
everywhere in cheap classical and popular editions, in elegant
drawing-room volumes elaborately bound, in the most splendid
editions de luxe. His songs are sung, his dramas acted, his heroes
and heroines, he himself and the whole galaxy of his loves are
to be met with in every shop-window. It is not necessary to learn a
new or an old language in order to understand his poems. His
ideas and ideals seldom go beyond the comprehension of the most
commonplace public, and should this be the case, there are numerous
commentaries at hand which enlarge upon his love affairs under
pretence of philological erudition. Invested with the authority of
the greatest classical poet, and regarded as the benefactor and
glory of the nation, he makes his way into all circles ; with his
bewitching charm, like the Pied Piper of Hamelin, he draws all hearts
to him, especially those of women and youth. He never preaches
unbelief and immorality as boldly, as audaciously as Voltaire,
Wieland or the modern French realists, but always veiled, gently,
insinuatingly, alluringly, in an apparently innocent form, always
with an admixture of what is good and true, what is partly good,
partly true. He undermines the faith and morality of the young
without their realising the seduction. If the venom of his pagan
principles is not to penetrate further and further, it is indeed time
that all those who have any influence on the education of the
young should take this danger seriously to heart, and unite their
forces to check it.

“ Above all, it is evident that the reading and study of Goethe
must again be restricted in accordance with the principles of truly
Christian pedagogics, which lays more stress on religious and
moral training than on beauty of form, style and language. The
school cannot and must not take part in the modern hero-worship
of Goethe, if it is to retain its Christianity. It must, on the contrary,
rectify the erroneous ideas which are necessarily engendered by
that cult. All precautions, all anthologies, all expurgated school-
editions are of no avail if the author of Iphigenie , etc., is over-

240

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

whelmed with praise from a misunderstood patriotism or aesthetic
over-estimation ; if instead of a better authority Eckermann’s
Gesprdche and lines from Goethe are everlastingly quoted, even
for the most commonplace occasions ; if all aesthetic and all poetic
theory is to be based on Goethe ; if he is continually compared
with Dante, Shakespeare, Calderon, and the young are solemnly
given to understand that as a poet he has left all the former poets
far behind him ; that ‘ our Goethe 5 is the greatest poet, the man
of most universal knowledge, the zenith of all civilisation. And
yet Goethe did not know enough scholastic theology and philosophy
for the mere comprehension of Dante’s Divine Comedy ; he has
not written a single tragedy which as a stage play can stand
comparison with the masterpieces of Shakespeare and Calderon.
. . . Instead of incessant eulogy, let us tell the young plainly how
low Goethe stands as a man, how hollow and superficial was his
outlook on life, how immoral and pernicious were his principles,
how small his importance as a naturalist or art critic. Let us tell
the young how, after thirty years of foolish wanderings, he turned
to Aristotle’s Poetics , and as a man of fifty, to the greatest benefit
of his poetic development, at last studied those rules on art
which have for centuries constituted the basis of Poetics at all
Catholic educational establishments. Let us lay before the young
the restless, fragmentary labours of young Goethe, the enormous
harm done to him by the frittering away of his energies. Let
us show them the weaknesses and defects of Goethe’s poetry,
as contrasted with that of the ancients, of Shakespeare and
Calderon. There is hardly a quotation from Goethe that could
not be replaced by one from the ancient classics or from the
best Catholic writers.*

“ Why always Goethe, Goethe — nothing but Goethe ? After
all, what does it profit the Seven Sacraments if this Privy Councillor
of Weimar, consort of a dance-loving Christiane Vulpius, considered
them beautiful, without believing in them ?

“ What avail his sketches of the Flight into Egypt if they only
serve to introduce our youth into the unclean society of Wilhelm
Meister ? What good sayings has he ever uttered about the ancients,
about the Bible, about religion, art, literature and life that cannot
* Probably from the Poets of the Society of Jesus. See Chapter V.

The Scholastic Studies

241

be found more correctly, purely, very often better and more beauti-
fully stated by Catholic thinkers, poets, artists and writers ? Why
do we refuse credence to the most conscientious Catholic scholars
and scientific inquirers till Goethe and Eckermann have given
their blessing ? . . . The Church has never proceeded against
works of polite literature with that severity which she is wont to
exercise against strictly theological and philosophical works of
erroneous and hurtful tendency. Goethe’s works have never been
placed expressly and distinctly on the Roman Index. They were
left to its general regulations, as the Popes of the Renaissance once
left the works of Boccaccio, Valla, Beccadelli and Poggio, to the
conscience of the individual. This, however, does not amount to
a free passport for Goethe’s works. Apart from numerous passages
which sin grievously against the requirements of Christian discipline
and morals, they are thoroughly leavened with the most dangerous
errors by which our modern times are affected, and which the
Vatican Council has expressly repudiated in its binding decrees.
That rationalism, pantheism and religious indifference in which all
Goethe’s poetry has its roots, and which is clearly enough displayed
in his prose writings, has been eternally branded by the Church
herself. But few of his works are -untouched, or nearly so, by these
errors, though they appear but rarely in outspoken form ; the
great majority of his writings are steeped in them in a most attrac-
tive and alluring fashion, and are thus fully calculated to trivialise
and obscure religious ideas, and to weaken and undermine Christian
faith. The clear vision, faith and steadfastness of every individual
will modify this influence in very diSerent ways. ... It will be
a great gain for real Christian education when we revert from an
almost idolatrous cult of the great poet to a sober, sensible and just
appreciation of his life and works, when we know him as he actually
was, and do not esteem him beyond his deserts.”

“ . . . Youths and men will no longer accept a Werther, a Wilhelm
Meister, a Faust as types of the true German spirit, but as the
poetical forms of a morally decadent period. They will then
compare the spurious universality of Goethe with the real univer-
sality of Catholic learning, and will be easily convinced that an
Angelo Secchi [a Jesuit] understood more of the property of light
and of the unity of natural forces, a Raphael Garruci and a de Rossi

242 Fourteen Years a Jesuit

more of Christian art, a Reichsperger and Pugin more of the laws
of Gothic architecture, a Jannsen* more of German character,
history and national spirit, and a Peter Cornelius and Eduard von
Steinle more about Raphael and Italian painting, a Joseph von
Gorres more about Mysticismt and German folklore, a Friedrich
von Schlegel more about universal literature, a Lorinser more about
Calderon, a Cardinal Wiseman more about Shakespeare than
Johann Wolfgang Goethe, Heinrich Meyer, Wilhelm Riemer, Peter
Eckermann and all the rest, together with the comet-like tail of
philologists and critics.

“ When this glittering Goethe meteor is no longer considered
a universal lodestar of real world-philosophy, wisdom and know-
ledge, we shall once more be able to recognise and show honour
to other constellations in the firmament of German literature.’^

It is hard to know whether to marvel most at the
inferior understanding revealed in these Jesuit appre-
ciations of Lessing, Schiller, and Goethe, or at the hatred
which casts forth poison against great minds because
they illumine humanity with their light, and thus remove
it from Jesuit influence.

Whenever we open Baumgartner’s bulky Goethe-
monograph, the same passion for disparagement, the
same calumniating malice, are manifested. I quote a few
examples : —

“ It is most characteristic of Goethe that in this play [Shakes-
peare’s King John] he was but little interested in its great political,
ecclesiastic and patriotic motives, nor in the passionate and powerful
male characters, nor in the pathetic characters of Queen Eleanor
and Constance, but especially in the two affecting scenes with
Prince Arthur ; not in the light of a harmless, unfortunate prince,
as conceived by Shakespeare, but as a girl in boy’s clothes —
Christiane Neumann. * The whole play now hung upon her. She

* The notorious Ultramontane fabricator of history.

t Gorres wrote a half-crazy book on Mysticism. Cf. my work, Das Papsttum
in seiner sozialkulturelUn Wirhaamheit , I. 235-245.

J Der Alte von Weimar, £>p. 271-278, 281-284.

The Scholastic Studies

243

acted well. But when Hubert approached with the tongs to put
out the prince’s eyes, she did not show enough terror. On this, the
manager, Goethe, tore the tongs from Hubert’s hands, rushed
at Christiane, and made such terrible eyes at her that she fainted.
Now, Goethe himself was frightened, knelt down before her, and
when she recovered consciousness gave her a kiss.’ This is the
chief scene during nearly forty years of stage management described
in a glorified light in all books on Goethe, even in histories of
literature. It is a striking proof of the profound contrast between
the virile and universal genius of a true dramatist like William
Shakespeare and the lyrical adorer of maidens, Wolfgang Goethe,
who was more interested in the caress than in King John and all
the Kings of England, Ireland and Scotland put together.”

Of Goethe’s attitude towards the French Revolution,
the Jesuit says : —

“ And Goethe ? Goethe felt embarrassed. As a true disciple of
Rousseau and Voltaire, as a decided non-Christian and pagan, he
could not in common consistency but approve of the thorough
and complete abolition of the old order of things, the guillotining
of kings, the old nobility, the priests, the abolition of honour and
the other remnants of the Seven Sacraments, the secularisation of
the whole of life, with a view to the speedy occupation of Europe
with Greek republics, with the greatest possible number of gods,
hetaerae , philosophers and poets, painters, sculptors, intellectual
enjoyment and artistic delights. This was his religion and the
view he took of life. But, as an ordinary Frankfort citiaen, he
wanted at the same time to eat and sleep in peace ; as a Weimar
Privy Councillor he desired an increase rather than a decrease
of salary ; as the friend of a Duke, he preferred seeing him crowned
to seeing him decapitated. The French Republic was not organised
on the model of Periclean Athens, but according to the uncomfort-
able military rule of Roman agitators, triumvirs and tyrannicides.
Not poems, but proscription lists, were issued. Olympic games
were not held, but heads were cut off* The freethinkers in Paris
were not content with taking an unwedded Vulpius into their
houses, and having her little boys christened by a gentleman who

244

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

scarcely believed in Christ himself, simply to throw dust in people’s
eyes ; they preferred to guillotine people who objected to such
things, to pocket their money, and to remodel the world. That
would not do at Weimar. All violence was odious to the Privy
Councillor. Who would read his Tasso, if there were no more
duchesses and Court ladies ? Who would shed tears over his
Werther, if the world became so callous and unfeeling ? ”

Even Goethe’s affecting lines to Schiller’s memory
serve Baumgartner to asperse the object of his hatred : —

“ The contrast which Schiller offered to the prevailing tendency
in Weimar was certainly indicated in a subsequent verse, but it
was amiably neutralised by the reflection : ‘ He was ours ’ — it was
a cunning stroke of policy. For thus Schiller was for ever bound
to the triumphal car of his former rival.”*

I must, however, say a word in defence of the Jesuit
Baumgartner against himself, i.e. his publications in dis-
paragement of Goethe and the other classics. These ugly
judgments are not altogether his innermost convictions.
Baumgartner’s undeniable poetical talent had led him
to a considerably higher estimate of the “ Old Man of
Weimar,” and he had put this conception into writing,
but was compelled to publish a different version, the one
prescribed by the censorship of the Order.

In 1887, after the conclusion of my theological studies
at Ditton Hall, I was transferred, in the capacity of
scriptor, to Exaeten, where the editorial staff of the
Stimmen aus Maria-Laach was quartered at the time.
The Jesuit Joseph Fah was editor-in-chief and also Vice-
Rector of the whole establishment. Fah told me one
day that, according to the censor’s verdict, Baumgartner
had concluded his monograph on Goethe with a too
favourable general estimate ; that the manuscript had been
returned to him (Baumgartner was at the time at the

* Goethe und Schiller , pp. 82-83, 118-119.

The Scholastic Studies

245

college of Blyenbeck) with the intimation that the
criticism on Goethe must be considerably altered in
an unfavourable direction. I asked, in surprise, “ But
will Baumgartner do it ? ” Fah answered, “ Of course
he will.” And he did.*

This occurrence shows two things : the hatred of the
Jesuits for Goethe and the power of Jesuit censorship
and Jesuit obedience. Not in vain do the Constitutions
of the Order prescribe blind obedience.

* I know Baumgartner well. I was with him at Exaeten for a long time.
He is the typical example of the transformation Jesuit training can effect in a
man of real ability. When quite young, on leaving the Jesuit College of Feldkirch,
he entered the novitiate of the Order. He would have distinguished himself, had
he been able to develop freely in accordance with his individuality. But the
Jesuit machine trimmed him, castrated him in mind, will and disposition. Thus
his mental powers were broken, and worse : he became a zealot, a man who directed
his rancour against all that is beautiful and true in nature and humanity, while
inwardly yearning after it, in spite of his invectives. Poor fellow !

CHAPTER XXII

THE PHILOSOPHICAL AND THEOLOGICAL STUDIES OP THE
SCHOLASTICATE

Philosophy and theology, rightly understood, are sepa-
rate, independent branches of knowledge ( Wissenschaften ).
But philosophy, in the Jesuit sense, is altogether dependent
on theology, is even its “ handmaid ” and “ servant ” : “ The
professors of philosophy [says the eighth canon of the
third General Congregation] are to teach philosophy in
such a manner that it becomes the handmaid and servant
of true scholastic theology, which is commended to us by
our Constitutions : ‘ TJt verae theologiae scholasticae , quam
nobis commendant Constitutiones, ancillari el subservire
faciant .’ ”* Therefore I shall treat in the same section of
Jesuit philosophy and theology.

First, a few words as to the outward form of these
studies.

The philosophy course generally lasts for three years,
though there are some exceptions. Every year there is
an examination of half an hour, and at the end of the third
year a final examination of an hour’s duration on the
whole of philosophy. Only those who “ surpass medi-
ocrity ” in this examination (mediocritatem superaverint)
enter on the four years’ course of “ scholastic theology ”
known as the “ Major Dogma.” Those who do not pass
the final examination must content themselves with the
three years’ course, known as the “ Minor Dogma.” Every

* Inst. S.J., I., 477.

46

Studies of the Scholasticate

247

year of theological study also ends with an examination.
The examination of the fourth year {examen rigorosum )
lasts two hours. This examination decides whether those
who possess “ virtue surpassing mediocrity ” are afterwards
to take the degree of “ professed ” or only that of “ spiritual
coadjutor.” If the candidate is to become a “ professed ”
the examination must show that he has attained “ that
degree of thorough philosophical and theological know-
ledge which will qualify him to teach both subjects
satisfactorily.”*

All examinations are oral ; they are conducted by
four examiners under the presidency of the Rector or the
Provincial, who must swear to fulfil their duty con-
scientiously and to disclose their verdict only to the
General of the Order and the Provincial,! for entrance
into the books designated for the purpose.

If anyone possesses “ conspicuous gifts for ruling or
preaching ” ( illustria gubernandi concionandive talenta)
the “ insufficient knowledge ” ( doctrina ivipcir) shown in
the examination may be overlooked. This decision is
exclusively in the hands of the General of the Order.
Also “ excellent knowledge of classical and Indian lan-
guages ” may, if the General consider it advisable, atone
for the deficiencies in philosophy and theological know-
ledge. %

In the philosophy year, logic and ontology (the science
of being) are studied. The second year’s course includes
natural philosophy (i.e. a medley of miscellaneous matter
belonging to the domain of natural science, decked out
with philosophy and styled cosmology, including miracles
with their criteria), and psychology (simplicity, spiritu-
ality, immortality of the soul, its connection with the

* Rules 17 and 19 for the Provincial,
f Rule 19, 12 for the Provincial ; Congreg. 12, Decret. 22.
x Rule 19, 10 for the Provincial ; Congreg. 6, Decret. 15.

248

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

body, its difference from the animal soul). The third
year’s course comprises ethics (natural morality) and
natural theology (theodicy). In the last two years there
are also a few lessons on chemistry, physics, botany, and
astronomy. Instruction and achievement in these branches
of science hardly correspond to the work done in the middle
and higher forms of a gymnasium. When I studied philo-
sophy at Blyenbeck, “ lectures ” delivered by the Jesuit
Epping on astronomy were anything rather than scientific.
We laughed a good deal, slept not a little (the lessons
were early in the afternoon), and profited accordingly.

In the case of theological studies the system is not
quite so hard and fast. The two professors of theology
— generally there are no more — arrange among them-
selves, with the permission of the Principal and the Prefect
of Studies, how the theological subject matter shall be
distributed over four or, as the case may be, three years.

Together with the scholastic — i.e. speculative — the-
ology a two-years’ course on moral theology ( casus con-
scientiae) is given. This is an extremely important — I
might almost say all-important — branch of Jesuit study,
by which the young Jesuit is trained for practical life,
and especially for his work in the confessional.

The pupils receive the summary of the lectures in the
form of hectographed “ codices.” No notes are taken
during lectures. Neither are text-books used except for
moral theology, where the Tlieologia moralis of the Jesuit
Lehmkuhl is the text-book in use.

What has been imparted in the lectures is elaborated
and impressed upon the mind by regular disputations.
Great importance is attached to these. The ordinary
disputation, of one hour’s duration, held several times a
week, is called a “ Circle ” (Circtdus). Every Saturday
a more important debate, “ Sabbatina ” — short for
disputatio sabbatina — is held. The “ disputationes men -

Studies of the Scholasticate

249

struae,” held five or sis times a year, are attended with
special solemnities. The Rector of the House appears at
the head of the other Fathers, and so does the Provincial,
if he happens to be in residence. Whereas in the “ Circle ”
and “ Sabbatina ” the defenders and opposers are chosen
in advance, and only a few theses (mostly those gone
through immediately before) are selected for debate, in
the “ Menstruae ” the proposers are only nominated by
the Prefect of Studies at the outset of the debate (everyone
is expected to be prepared), and the theses to be defended
extend over a wider field.

The form of all disputations is the same. The defender
announces the thesis, defines the status questionis — i.e.
explains what the thesis asserts and what it does not assert
— and states the arguments for its correctness in syllogistic
form. In theological theses the proofs are generally of three
kinds. 1. From the Holy Scriptures (ex s. scriptura).
2. From reason (ex ratione). 3. From pronouncements of
the Fathers of the Church (ex s. s. Pairibus). Thesis,
status questionis, and arguments are committed to memory
as literally as possible from the “ Codices.” When the
defender has concluded his final argument, the opposer
attacks the thesis. And now begins a verbal dispute in
strictly scholastic-syllogistic form between defender and
opposer, until the defender either succeeds in solving the
difficulties or breaks down in the attempt. If he fails,
he is, as the scholastic slang has it, “ in the sack ” (in
sacco), and the professor presiding at the disputation
intervenes to save the threatened thesis. At the
“ Menstruae ” the invited Fathers also take part in
the debate.

Sometimes, though rarely, “ public performances ”
(actus publici) are organised, i.e. one person supports a
number of theological and philosophical theses against
opposers from among the secular clergy or the priests of

250

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

the Order. No such ceremony took place during my
period of study.

Some, whom the Order wishes to train more fully
for some special service, pass through a biennium in
theology, philosophy, or one of the kindred branches of
knowledge (Exegesis, Church Law, Church History), after
the four years’ course.

In all lectures and disputations the use of Latin is
compulsory.

And now as to the spirit of the studies.

As regards philosophy, let me first refer to what I have
already quoted from the Constitutions of the Order, from
the Scheme of Studies, and from decrees of the General
Congregation as to the fundamental standpoint adopted
by the Jesuit Order in philosophy. Unswerving adherence
to the peripatetic system of Aristotle (who died 322 b.c.)
— again solemnly declared in 1883 I — with partial appli-
cation of this system even to questions of natural science,
and a re-endorsement of resolutions passed by the General
Congregations of the Order in the eighteenth century
(1706 and 1751) in favour of the Aristotelian system.

The argument for this adherence to Aristotle is very
characteristic :

“ That philosophy must be followed because it is more
useful to theology.”*

From this Aristotelian standpoint, it is self-evident
that the whole of modern philosophy must be sorely
neglected. Minds like Descartes, Leibnitz, Spinoza, Kant,
Hegel, Fichte, Schelling, Schopenhauer, E. von Hartmann,
etc., are disposed of by inadequate theses. A few syllo-
gisms, and a Kant, a Descartes, etc., fall to the ground.

Here once again I keenly regret that when I left the
Order I left behind all my manuscript notes. From the
“ Codices ” of my period of Jesuit study a clear and

* Congreg. 23 of the year 1883 ; Decret. 15.

Studies of the Scholasticate

251

instructive description might have been given of the
treatment allotted to the study of modern philosophy by
the “ modern ” Jesuit.

The works of modern philosophers were not placed in
our hands. The few details concerning them in our
“ Codices ” represented for us the sum total of their
publications. The reference libraries at our disposal con-
tained exclusively the works of Jesuit writers. It is the
same here as with the piety and asceticism of the Order :
Jesuits, Jesuits, Jesuits, and nothing but Jesuits !

I feel ashamed and indignant when I remember that
when I was thirty years old I used to be content with
the ill-concocted dilution which the Order served up to me
as the quintessence of the labours of these great thinkers.
Kant especially was treated with a superficiality that
surpassed everything. I only made this great man’s
acquaintance when I was staying in Berlin in 1888, on a
mission for the Jesuit Order. There, free from police
supervision, I plunged deeply into the study of his works.
He became my chief liberator, who enlarged my innermost
thoughts, and opened a new and unknown horizon to my
ideas. How I apologised to him for having thought so
poorly of him when I was a Jesuit- Scholastic ! But the
fault was not mine !

Peter Beckx, General of the Order, in his official letter
of July 15th, 1854, to Count Leo Thun, Austrian Minister
of Public Instruction, draws a picture, both pertinent and
vested with supreme authority, of the Jesuit attitude
towards any development of philosophy later than that
of the ancients or the Middle Ages : *

“ How can we place reliance in philosophy as it has shown
itself in our days, how can we with any confidence expect to gain
from it knowledge and a basis for truth, when its four great schools,
which under Kant, Fichte, Schelling and Hegel by turns subjugated
the whole of Germany, finally melted away into pure (sic) atheism.

252 Fourteen Years a Jesuit

and were abandoned one alter the other, and at the same time —
to say nothing of religious and political degeneration — have left
behind them a state of doubt, uncertainty and almost universal
confusion, in which men continue their contention, but without
appearing to understand one another’s meaning ?

“ "What has caused this state of things ? Simply this : The
ground which was wrested from true philosophy by the afore-
mentioned four schools has not been recovered, and men, either not
understanding the real cause of the evil or not wishing to admit
it, seek it ever along fresh paths, thus falling from one error into
another. The truly Catholic Universities were always agreed and
clear as to the basis of philosophy [the Aristotelian system].”*

And twenty years later the Jesuit Ebner characterises
in an official controversial treatise against Joh. Kelle,
Professor at the University of Prague, the whole of modern
philosophy by the scornful words :

“ Futile vagaries, confused ideas, foolish arrogance and charla-
tanism clothed in boastful, empty phrases in a repulsive, unintel-
ligible jargon ; systems as hostile to sound sense as to God and
Christianity, all of which really tend towards materialism and
pantheism, and which perhaps have recently reached their climax
and, it is to be hoped, their conclusion, in the absurdities and
blasphemies of that monstrous abortion, the * Philosophy of the
Unconscious 9 ” (Philosophic des Unbewussten). t

The following facts, too, speak for themselves : Piccolo-
mini, General of the Order, issued a decree in 1661, for
“ the higher studies/ 3 which to this day is found unaltered
in the official edition of the Constitutions of the Order.
In it is stated :

“ The Prefect of Studies is to see to it that the Aristotelian
definitions of origins, causes, nature, the motion, and the continuum ,
the infinite, are accurately explained, and that natural philosophy

* Monatsblattfiir Katkol. UnterricTUs- u. Erziehungs-wescn. 12 Jahrg. Munster.
P. 294.

f Beleuchtung der Schrijt des Herm Dr. Johann Kdle : Die J esvitengymna&ien
in Oesterreich . Linz, 1S74. Pp. 595-596.

Studies of the Scholasticate

253

is thoroughly discussed according to the Aristotelian arrangement:
In Aristotle’s de Cado, the nature, properties and influence of
the heavens on the sublunary bodies, are not to be omitted. In
the first book on generation, the Aristotelian doctrine on genera-
tion and corruption is to be thoroughly studied.”

To an inquiry sent by the Province of the Upper
Rhine, Gonzalez, General of the Order, under threats of a
heavy penalty, pronounced against the introduction of
“ new philosophical ideas ” into the schools of the Order.*

His successor, Tamburini, prohibited thirty propositions
from the works of Descartes and Leibnitz.f Up to the
year 1832 Aristotle was the text-book used for the entire
three years’ course in philosophy. J

What spirit, then, prevails in theology ? That of the
medieval scholastics, in particular the spirit of Thomas
Aquinas, prince of scholastics, who died in 1274.

The Second Rule for the Teacher in Theology, as stated
in the Ratio Studiorum, is :

“ In Scholastic Theology our people are to follow
strictly (omnino sequantur) the teaching of St. Thomas ;
they are to regard him as their own teacher ( eumque ut
doctorem proprium habeant), and do their utmost to inspire
the students with enthusiasm for his teaching.”

This order, dating from the year 1599, is even surpassed
by the 15th Decree, issued in 1883, by the twenty-third
General Congregation of the Order :

“ Our most holy master, Leo XIII., having a few years ago
commanded through an encyclical Aeterni Patris how the studies
of Christian schools under the guidance of the Angelic Doctor
[Doctor Angdicus is the official designation of Thomas Aquinas]
are to be brought back to the wisdom of ancient times, the Society
of Jesus, for the first time since the issue of the encyclical assem-
bled at a General Congregation, considers it advisable to give an

* Monum. Germ, paed., 0, 122.
t Ibid. % Ibid., 10, 464.

254

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

■unequivocal token of its filial obedience and consent by a public
and solemn declaration. In tbe conviction, therefore, that it could
do nothing more agreeable or more conducive to the fulfilment of
the wishes of his Holiness than to establish anew what has long
ago been confirmed to the same effect by our ancestors, the Con-
gregation decides by the motion of the Very Venerable General
that : what was ordered by our holy Father Ignatius in his Con-
stitutions (IV., 14, n. 1), and by the fifth General Congregation
in the 41st and 56th Decrees, is to remain in full force — namely,
our people are to regard St. Thomas in all respects as their own
teacher and are to be bound in duty ( teneantur ) to follow him in
Scholastic Theology.”*

One point here is specially noteworthy :

Whilst the Ratio of the year 1599, in the same rulef
which sets up Thomas Aquinas as a prominent authority,
makes this reservation : “ It is not to be understood from
this that we may never deviate from him in any single
point 55 ; the decree of the Congregation of the year 1883
drops this reservation, and changes the more lenient
expression of the Ratio into a binding law :

“ They [the Jesuits] are to be bound to follow him
[Thomas Aquinas] in Scholastic Theology ” : eumque in
scholastica theologia sequi teneantur .

One word about the encyclical on which the decree of
the Congregation is based. It is that of August 4th, 1879,
in which Leo XIII. commands the revival of philosophy
and theology in the spirit of the Scholastic School, and
designates Thomas Aquinas as the leader they are to
follow :

“ Among scholastic teachers, Thomas Aquinas, prince and
master of all, is by far the greatest. . . . There is no department
of philosophy which he has not treated with perspicuity and
thoroughness. ... He was successful both in overcoming all

* Monum. Germ. paed. 2, 11S.
f Rule^2 for^the Professor of Theology.

Studies of the Scholasticate 255

errors in the past, and in providing victorious weapons against all
errors that may arise in ages to come / 5

After quoting the eulogies of Thomas Aquinas by
earlier Popes, he continues thus :

“ A crowning glory which no other Catholic theologian shares
with him was conferred on him, when the Fathers of the Council
of Trent, in the very hall where they were assembled, commanded
that, together with the Holy Scriptures and Papal decrees, the
Summa [St. Thomas’s principal work, entitled Summa theologica ]
should be laid on the altar, so that counsel, proofs and solutions
might be drawn therefrom. . . . Civil society also would gain
much in peace and security if a healthier doctrine, more in harmony
with the orthodox faith as set forth in the works of St. Thomas
Aquinas, were taught at their academies and schools. We earnestly
exhort you all, reverend brethren, for the promotion of all know-
ledge, to reintroduce the golden wisdom of St. Thomas, and to
propagate it as far as possible. ... 55

This declaration, as we have seen, gave the Jesuits a
pretext for promulgating anew, in more stringent form,
the old decree of the Order concerning the preservation of
St. Thomas’s spirit in philosophy and theology. But there
is yet more ! Papal encyclicals and decrees of the Con-
gregations of the Order are identical ; they have one and
the same origin — the Society of Jesus. For the “ German ”
Jesuit, Joseph Kleutgen, is the author of the encyclical
Aeterni Patris. This I was told by the Jesuit Meschler
when he was Provincial of the German Province. This
is a significant proof, not only of the fact that Jesuit
theology is firmly rooted in the Summa of the Monk
of the Middle Ages, but also of the unobtrusive but mighty
power which the Jesuit Order exercises on the Papacy.
It writes to all the “ Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops
and Bishops of the Catholic world who live in grace and
unison with the Apostolic Chair ” [invariable heading of
all Papal Encyclicals] ; it points out the path to be

256 Fourteen Years a Jesuit

followed by Catholic theological studies in all countries ;
thus the Order is the greatest obstacle to modern evolution
of Catholic thought. And doubtless the encyclical con-
cerning the revival of philosophy and theology according
to the principles and precepts of Thomas Aquinas is not
the only one signed by the Pope which was composed by
the Society of Jesus.

If I blame the Order for their rigid adherence to
Aristotelian philosophy and Thomistic theology* I would
in no way underrate the great intellects of Aristotle and
Thomas Aquinas.

Both are conspicuously eminent — the heathen Greek
even more than the Christian Monk — among the intel-
lectual heroes of all ages. Both were creative geniuses,
who stimulated and deepened the human mind. And
however narrow was the field for which Aquinas worked,
he was an Ultramontane Catholic in the narrowest sense, f
In this field he has dug shafts and piled up heights which,
considered from the standpoint of metaphysical-ultra-
montane speculation, are admirable. But we are not

* In order to guard against quibbling, I observe that the expression
“Thomistic ” is not used here in the sense of “Thomism,” but as the definition
of a form of theology which, like the Jesuit theology, acknowledges Thomas
Aquinas as its leader and chief teacher. By “ Thomism ” is understood the inter-
pretation put upon the words of Thomas Aquinas by his commentators (Cajetan,
Soto, Melchior Canus, etc.). To “ Thomism ” in its narrowest sense, i.e. the
“ Doctrine of Grace,” attributed to Thomas by his interpreters, the Jesuits have
opposed Molinism (so called after the Jesuit Molina), which also refers its “ Con-
ception of Grace ” to Thomas Aquinas. Both doctrines are unworthy of an ideal
conception of God.

f The ignorance prevailing even in highly cultured non-Catholic circles with
regard to Thomas Aquinas as a narrow, Ultramontane theologian is shown by a
speech of the well-known Dr. Friedrich Naumann at the Protestant Congress
at Bremen in September, 1909. Naumann, speaking on liberalism in religion
and politics, represented Thomas Aquinas as a theologian of liberal opinions,
whom, however, the Roman Church of to-day, with diplomatic cunning, honoured
as her own, and thus kept up the appearance of large-mindedness, while the
Protestant Church repudiated many evangelical liberal theologians with hurtful
shortsightedness. From this estimate of Thomas (I heard it myself) it seems to
be impossible that Dr. Naumann can ever have looked into a single one of the
Dominican’s works.

Studies of the Scholasticate 257

concerned with the individual greatness of the Stagirite
and Aquinas, but with the circumstance that an organisa-
tion with pretensions to intellectual and scholarly vitality,
the Jesuit Order, continues to draw its supplies of know-
ledge and learning from sources which flowed hundreds,
nay thousands, of years ago, and that by this retrograde
direction of mind it shows itself hostile to progress and
uncompromisingly refuses to tread new paths.

Certainly the Order has one good excuse : it is ultra-
montane, therefore progress in knowledge is impossible
for it, as for the whole ultramontanised Catholic Church of
which it forms a part. But, if est ut est aut non est explains
and excuses everything from the Jesuit’s point of view,
the world which is neither Jesuit nor Ultramontane cannot
accept this excuse in passing an objective judgment on
the Order ; it is compelled to say : Your principles are
indeed necessary to yourself and your own existence, but
in themselves they are retrograde and contain the negation
of living scholarship.

I have already pointed out the great importance
attached by the Order in its theological and philosophical
school work to the scholastic-syllogistic method. And
rightly ! For this form is more than a form, it is the outward
and visible sign of the spirit prevailing in Jesuit studies.

The 13th Rule for the Teacher of Philosophy in the
Ratio, even the “ new ” one of 1832, runs thus :

* “ At the very outset of their studies in logic, the
young people [scholastics] must be trained to feel that
nothing is more disgraceful in the disputations than any
deviation from the syllogistic form, and the teacher must
insist with special force on the strict observance of the
laws of the disputation and the prescribed alternation of
attack and defence.”

From the Manual on Logic for the Use of Schools,* by

* Logica in usum Scholarum (Freiburg, 1893 ), p. 96 .

R

258 Fourteen Years a Jesuit

the Jesuit Frick, I quote a specimen of a disputation, in
Latin however, for this sort of thing cannot be translated
without almost destroying its effect. First, the “ Defendens ’ ’
proposes the thesis, stating the arguments in favour :

Defendens : “ Scepticismus universalis, ut doctrina

repugnat. Probatur : 1. ex ipsa assertione scepticismi ;
2. ex principio contradictionis.

The “ Defendens ” having explained the arguments,
the “ Objiciens ” begins his work :

Objiciens : “ Scepticismus universalis, ut doctrina non
repugnat. Probatur : Qui saepe fallitur, nullam fidem
meretur. Atqui ratio saepe fallitur. Ergo nullam fidem
meretur.”

The “ Defendens ” repeats the Syllogism of the
“ Objiciens ,” and follows it up with his “ distinctions,”
and thus the disputation is set going :

Qui saepe fallitur nullam fidem meretur : distinguo
majorem : qui fallitur per se : concedo majorem ; qui
fallitur per accidens : subdistinguo majorem : non meretur
fidem, nisi quando error ille accidentalis excludatur : concedo
majorem : quando exclusus est : nego majorem.

Atqui : ratio saepe fallitur : contradistinguo minorem :
ratio fallitur per se et in evidentibus : nego minorem : per
accidens et in non evidentibus : transeat minor.

Ergo : nullam fidem meretur : distinguo consequens :
non meretur fidem in evidentibus : nego consequens ; in non
evidentibus : subdistinguo consequens : nisi constet de
ratiocinii legitimitate : transeat consequens : si constet :
nego consequens.

Objiciens : “ Atqui ratio fallitur per se : ergo nulla

distinction

The “ Defendens ” repeats the subsumptio of the
“ Objiciens ” :

Defendens : “ Atqui ratio fallitur per se : nego minorem
subsumptam.”

Studies of the Scholasticate 259

Objiciens : “ Probo minorem subsceptam : ratio

humana essentialiter est jallibilis ; atqui quod rationi
essentiale est, illi per se et semper convenit ; ergo ratio est
per se et semper jallibilis.”

After again repeating the words of the “ Objiciens”
the “ Defendens ” continues :

“ Ratio humana essentialiter est jallibilis : distinguo
majorem : ex essentia rationis est, ut possit f alii per accidens,
sel ex defectu evidentiae alicujus objecti, concedo majorem ;
ex essentia rationis est, ut possit etiam jalli per se, i.e. sub
conditione requisita evidentiae : nego majorem ; atqui quod
rationi essentiale est, illi per se et semper convenit : concedo
minorem ; ergo ratio est per se et semper jallibilis : distinguo
consequens : per se et semper convenit rationi ut actu errare
possit : nego consequens ; per se et semper convenit rationi, ut
sit talis, quae per accidens errare possit : concedo consequens.”

The syllogistic-formalistic characteristics of the dis-
putation, conspicuous in the terms atqui, distinguo, sub-
distinguo, transeat, concedo and the like, I have marked
by different type. If we realise that this formalism holds
sway in the Jesuit schools evening after evening, year after
year, we shall understand how these mechanical ossified
forms gradually produce a similar rigidity of the intellect.
The apparent gain in clearness and certainty from the
numerous short distinctions is acquired at the cost of a
deeper and more living comprehension of the questions
debated. With the aid of three, four, or even five or six
“ distinctions,” the number does not matter, a Jesuit
pupil is ready at a moment’s notice to dispose of the most
difficult problems. In order not to seem unjust, I have
purposely given an instance of a disputation in which the
distinctions and the syllogistic form really lead to a clear
and correct result, which could, however, have been
attained just as quickly and clearly without the scholastic
paraphernalia, i.e. the inconsistency of absolute scepticism.

260 Fourteen Years a Jesuit

But if we now imagine this method applied to dark and
abstruse questions of philosophy and theology, in which
scholasticism abounds, the result, instead of enlarging our
comprehension, is mere wordy warfare and dreary verbosity.
The combatant who disposes of the best equipped arsenal
of distinctions — and in this respect the wealth of scholas-
ticism is amazing — comes off victorious ; he “ resolves ”
the difficulties, and “ defends ” the thesis. But neither
the solution nor the defence advances our comprehension
by a single hair. Formaliter, materialiter, essentialiter,
accidentaliter, potentialiter, actualiter, abstracte, concrete,
entitative, terminative, reduplicative, simpliciter, absolute,
relative, virtualiter, secundum quid : these are but a few of
the literally endless terms on the disputation list, which
professors and students have at their disposal, and on
the skilful choice of which depend a successful solution
and defence. Such expressions as potentialiter nego,
actualiter concedo, entitative transeat, terminative concede,
virtualiter subdistinguo, or other similar distinctions, suffice
to solve every problem of theoretical knowledge of theology
in heaven and earth, and to refute all the works of Spinoza,
Kant, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, and the rest.

This barrenness and lack of progressive spirit which
have characterised scholasticism from its first origin to
the present day are due not so much to the rigidity of
ecclesiastical dogma — since the dogmas that have been
defined during the last thousand years might be counted
on the fingers of one hand — as in the rigid, formalistic,
syllogistic treatment which ecclesiastical philosophy and
theology have received in the scholastic schools. In this
form, hermetically sealed and reeking with the musty
smell of centuries, the first conditions of life — air and
light — are lacking.

Is it not a remarkable circumstance, alone sufficing to
condemn this formalism, that all further development in

Studies of the Scholasticate 261

philosophical and theological thought was and is accom-
plished outside the syllogistic form ? Within this brazen
tower of scholasticism revolve, mechanically set in motion
by syllogisms, the ancient, petrified distinctions on the
pointed axis of a concedo, transeat, ?iego, subdistinguo. The
stream of life flows past this structure.

Perhaps we might apply the words of Mephistopheles
to the scholastic syllogistic disputations :

“For just when the ideas are lacking
A word may prove most opportune. ”*

Then there is another point : the use of the Latin
language for all lectures and disputations.

However much and rightly we may value the strictly
logical structure of the Latin language, and however
justly we may find in it a suitable aid for scholarly inter-
national intercourse, still it cannot be doubted that the
exclusive use of Latin for philosophical and theological
speculation must have the effect of hindering and benumb-
ing the spirit of research. Free, living and fructifying
thought is only possible in the mother tongue, i.e. in a form
that is most easily and naturally handled, and the same
applies to the expression of the thought. Those who use
a dead language to express their innermost and deepest
cognition, must at once renounce the possibility of any
true and complete development. They castrate it at
birth. The free development of cognition requires a living
pliant form capable of development. Scholastic philosophy
and theology make use of a dead language because they
themselves are dead, i.e. incapable of development, because
they abide motionless by the standpoint of hundreds,
even thousands, of years ago (I refer to Aristotle and
Thomas Aquinas) ; and they abide by it because, among
other reasons, they make use of a dead language. It

* Goethe. Faust, I.

262 Fourteen Years a Jesuit

is impossible to express philosophical and theological life
in Latin. To translate Kant or Fichte, Schleiermacher or
Biedermann, to say nothing of the moderns, into Latin
is a contradiction in terms. Only where nothing can be
added or taken from the doctrine, only where the stream
of time has not forced the Middle Ages aside, is Latin a
suitable mode of expression, as is the case in the language
of inscriptions on monumental tombstones.

Besides these fundamental limitations to philosophical
and theological research and systematic checks on the
mobility of the intellect, the Jesuit Order has a considerable
number of Special Regulations, all with the same aim :
to fetter intellectual freedom, and cultivate exactly the
same knowledge in all members of the Order. The pro-
duction of “ silently revolving and smoothly rounded
balls 55 is also the main aim of Jesuit scholarship.

The most important of the regulations are these :

“ In accordance with the teaching of the Apostle, we should
be of one mind, and, so far as is possible, also use the same utterance.
Differences of doctrine are not to be allowed either in word, in
public pleadings, or in written works. . . . Yes, even difference
of opinion in practical matters, which is apt to prove the mother
of discord and foe to the union of will, is to be avoided, as far as
possible. But union and mutual conformity are to be most sedu-
lously cultivated, and nothing opposed to these must be tolerated. 5 ’*

“ Without consulting the Superiors no new questions (in
philosophy) are to be proposed, nor yet any opinion which is not
at any rate based on some good authority ; nor should anything
be defended which is contrary to the traditional philosophical
principles and the general opinion of the schools. Those who are
disposed to innovation or to free thought must be removed from
the teaching office without hesitation. 5 ’!

“ Since novelty or difference of opinion may not only hinder
the very aim which the Society has set before itself to the greater

* Summ. Const, n. 42. Const. III., 1, 18.
f Cong. 5. Decret. 51. Inst. S.J. y I., 253.

Studies of the Scholasticate 263

glory of God, but also cause the very existence of the Society to
totter, it is necessary to check by definite legislation in all possible
ways intellectual licence [licentiam ingeniorum) in the introduction
and pursuit of such opinions.”*

“ Even in the case of opinions about which Catholic Doctors
(Professors) are not agreed among themselves [where there is
freedom of opinion] care must be taken that there should be con-
formity [lack of freedom] in the Society itself.”f

“No one should teach anything which is not in conformity
with the spirit of the Church and tradition, or which could in any
way lessen the faith and zeal of true piety. . . . No one should
defend an opinion which the majority of the learned judge to be
contrary to the accepted doctrines of the philosophers or theo-
logians or the general opinion of the schools. ... In the case
of questions which have already been treated by others, no one
should follow new opinions, nor yet should new questions be
introduced concerning matters in any way connected with religion
or of any great importance, without first taking counsel with the
Prefect of Studies or the Superiors. Care should be taken that the
philosophy professors take to heart the directions in the eighth
canon of the third General Congregation.^ For the attainment of
this end it will be of great assistance if by means of careful selection
only those are admitted to teach philosophy and theology . . .
whose obedience and submissiveness are evident, and that all who
are not so disposed ... be removed from the teaching office
and utilised in other occupations.” §

“ Since it is not infrequently doubtful whether or not any doctrine
is new [and therefore must not be taught], and whether anything
differs from the usual school interpretation, which might lead to
difficulties between the Prefect of Studies [who has the chief
direction of the studies] and the Professors, this rule is laid down :
If the Prefect of Studies opposes a doctrine . . . the Professor
must follow the view of the Prefect and may neither teach nor
defend the doctrine in question, until the Superiors, to whom the
matter must be submitted, have given their decision. If the

* Rule 54 for the Provincial: Inst. S.J., I., 43.

Const. III., 1. Declar. O. Inst. 8.J. , I., 43.
t P. 246.

§ Instruction of General Acquaviva : Monum . Germ . <paed. f 4, 12 ei seq.

264

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

Professor abides by bis opinion the Rector should secretly take the
opinion of three or four learned fathers ; if these, or the majority,
decide that the Prefect is in the right, the Rector is to see to it
that the Professor submits absolutely (omnino), and similarly in
the opposite case. But that no suspicion may rest on the decision
of the fathers, only such fathers are to be chosen for this purpose
who are in no way addicted to new doctrine, and who are equally
well disposed to the Prefect and the Professor. If the Rector has
no such fathers at his disposition, he should apply to the Provincial
Superior, so that he may in the manner described ask counsel of
some such fathers. If even this is of no avail, and if the differences
of opinion [in a matter of scholarship !] cannot be reconciled, it rests
with the Superior to punish those who are at fault in the matter.”*

Finally, the panacea for preventing any individuality
in scholarship, any step on a new path, is the strict and
comprehensive literary censorship at the disposal of the
Order.

“ The eleventh General Congregation in its 18th decree already
laid down the severest penalties (deprivation of office, forfeiture of
the right to vote and stand for election) for those who published
books without permission. Under the heading of 4 books ’ are
included pamphlets, single sheets and anything (quidquid) which
attains publicity in print.

For works on dogma four censors are requisite ; for
exegesis, church history and philosophy, three ; for all
other books, pamphlets, or articles, two. Not only the text,
but also the preface and title of a work must be submitted
to the censor. Besides the general censors in Rome, special
censors are appointed for every Province ; they are to
realise to the full the great importance of their office. J

Finally, General Peter Beckx, on May 11th, 1862,
issued a comprehensive Instruction, which presents the
present theory and practice of the Jesuit literary censor-

* Ordinance as to the Higher Studies : Inst. S.J., II., 557.

t Inst. S.J . , I., 350; cf. Const. VII., 4, 11.

J Regulae Revisorum gen. reg., 1, 2, 15. Inst. S.J . , II., 71 et seq.

Studies of the Scholasticate 265

ship, without, however, modifying the above-quoted rules.
The most important points in this Ordinatio are :

1. Every one who desires to publish anything must first
submit it to the Provincial that he may judge whether its
publication would be advantageous. 2. The Provincial
is to report to the General about it. 3. If the Provincial
approves it he is to hand it on to the censors. 4. The
censors are to be appointed by the Provincial ; they are
to be anonymous to the author of the work and he to
them. 5. The censors must carefully observe the rules
of the Roman general revisionists. 6. Books on the Con-
stitution of the Society of Jesus, its rights and privileges,
as well as those which the General may reserve for his own
censorship, may only be published after being approved
by special censors appointed by the General. 7. If the
censors are unanimous in their opinion that a work may
be published, “ because in their opinion it surpasses
mediocrity appreciably in its own particular kind ” ( quod
mediocritatem in suo genere non mediocnter superare censeant),
the Provincial must at once give his consent to the publi-
cation. If the censors fail to agree, the Provincial is to
refer the matter to the General. 8. The censors are to
report their decisions to the General and Provincial.

9. The censors should note anything which, in their opinion,
should be altered, and should emphasise what in their
opinion are essential and what unessential alterations.

10. The comments of the censors may be communicated
to the author (without giving their names). 11. Anything
which any member of the Society of Jesus writes, whether
anonymously or under his own name, whether a thesis,
preface, letter or dedicatory epistle, title, superscription,
must be submitted to the censorship. 12. Similarly with
articles in newspapers or periodicals. 13. If a grievous
calumny is circulated against the Society of Jesus the
local Superior may, if the Provincial cannot be consulted,

266

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

give permission for its refutation, but this must first be
read through by two suitable fathers. 14. The Provincial
may entrust to the Local Superiors the examination of the
announcements, etc., published by schools. 15. New
editions and also translations must be submitted to the
censorship. 16. No publishing contract may be concluded
until the whole work has been submitted to the censor.*

Nearly all books published by Jesuits bear the
imprimatur of the Order in the form of a special permit
signed by the Provincial. For special reasons this may
be omitted. The wording of the Jesuit imprimatur, at
any rate in the German Province, is invariable, e.g. :

“ Since the work with the title Biology and Theory of Evolution,
third edition, composed by Erich Wasmann, Priest of the Society
of Jesus, has been examined by some revisers of the same Society,
commissioned for the purpose, who approved its publication, we
accordingly give our permission that, provided it seem good to
the persons concerned, it should be printed. For purposes of
authentication this document, signed by us and provided with
our official seal, may serve. Exaeten, July 29th, 1906. Father Karl
Schaffer, S.J., President of the German Province of the Order.”

My reason for reproducing the imprimatur of this
particular work is that it is not theological but scientific,
and that its author, the Jesuit Erich Wasmann, on the
strength of this work claims a place in the ranks of
scientists who pursue free research. But the very first
page of his book shows plainly the extent of his “ free ”
research ; it is the censors and the Provincial of the Order,
i.e. theologians, who have to decide whether the biological
investigations are to be published or not.

As with this book so with all others, no matter whether
they treat of history, art, mathematics, astronomy, botany,
zoology, physics, or any other subject. Before they can
appear, the red or blue pencil of the theological censor

* Inst . S.J . , II., 253 et seq.

Studies of the Scholasticate 267

does its work, and the Provincial, who usually knows next
to nothing of secular learning, decides whether the manu-
script is to be published or not. Indeed, my own Pro-
vincial Superiors, the Jesuits Hovel, Meschler, Lohmann,
Ratgeb, had only received the philosophical and theo-
logical training of the Order.

In answer to the objection that the Society is bound
to act thus in order to maintain its internal solidarity,
since liberty of thought and teaching would be centrifugal
forces tending to its destruction, I say : True, but unity
and uniformity in thought and teaching brought about by
law and the threat of punishment combined with a strict
censorship, are the grave of all true striving after know-
ledge, and admit of no free, continuous development of
human cognition. Where learning is made to serve
purposes which lie outside its scope, its exercise cannot
produce true knowledge. But in the Jesuit Order every-
thing is made to subserve the ends of the Order, above all
the learning which, regarded from without, seems to be
cultivated with such zeal. And one of the chief ends is
the strengthening of its own inner life, the extension of
its power, the deepening of its influence over men, and
eventually the strengthening of the Roman Church, with
all its claims to temporal and political dominion. But
crudely biased learning is not learning at all, even if (as
I must show later) individual achievements of individual
Jesuits may and do have scholarly value. But these are
exceptions to the rule ; their scholarship is good, not
because, but in spite of their being Jesuits; they are but
accidents in the domain of learning.

But the Order knows no mercy when the scholarly
achievements of members do not fit into its own frame-
work of learning. Then the censorship and punishment
do their worst.

In the years 1890 and 1891 I was myself book-censor

268 Fourteen Years a Jesuit

( censor librorum) for the German Province, a position
which may testify to my reputation for learning in the
Order. I am therefore exactly informed of the methods
of Jesuit censorship. When the interest of the Order is
opposed, not the smallest regard is paid to personal
freedom, nor to the established results of scientific investi-
gation or individual ability. The censorship deletes and
the author submits ; the punitive authority punishes and
the culprit remains dumb.

In the last year of my theological studies one of my
fellow-scholastics, a man of superior gifts, who was specially
interested in natural science, the Jesuit Breitung, wrote
an article for the Jesuit organ, Zeitschrift Jiir Katholische
Theologie (published at Innsbruck) about the Deluge.
Breitung maintained the ethnographic universality of the
flood, i.e. that all persons then in the world perished
except Noah and his family, but in accordance with the
results of geological and palaeontological research, he
abandoned its geographic universality, i.e. he admitted
that not the whole earth but only the whole of the inhabited
earth was flooded. The article had passed the Provincial
censorship, but found no favour at Rome with the head
censor of the Order ; it was a “ new doctrine subversive
of the Scriptures.” (Galileo’s teaching was also “ new
and subversive of the Scriptures.”) The General Ander-
ledy issued a decree which condemned the theory of the
geographical limitation of the Deluge. When Breitung
had ended his studies he was not allowed to devote himself
to natural science, as had been universally expected on
account of his special gifts and preliminary studies, but
was appointed teacher in the lowest classes in the College
of Ordrupshoj, in Denmark. There he was “ harmless.”
What scientific work he now carries on I do not know.

A few years later the Belgian Jesuit Hahn, Professor
of Natural Science at the College at Arlon, had published

Studies of the Scholasticate 269

a book on. the Spanish Saint Teresa a Jesu, and had come
to the conclusion that some remarkable phenomena in the
life of this nun, which had hitherto been regarded as
miraculous and tokens of divine grace, were of a hysterical
character. His book had actually been “ crowned ” by
a Spanish Catholic academy. But Rome here again
thought differently. The book was censored, and the
Order removed its author from his scientific professorship.

One of the most celebrated theologians of the Order
at the present day is the Jesuit Domenico Palmieri. He
too came into conflict with the censorship in his theological
researches — I forget what was the point in question,
certainly not one which was established dogmatically,
i.e. “ infallibly ” by the highest ecclesiastical teaching
authority — and in consequence he had to resign his chair.

And now a word as to my own studies which were
crowned with success. All my examinations in philo-
sophy and theology were passed satisfactorily, even the
last examen rigorosum of two hours’ duration. In theory
we were not supposed to know anything about the results
of examinations, but usually something leaks out, and
besides, the Provincial Superior, Jacob Ratgeb, informed
me that I had passed the last examination, accordingly
all the previous ones also, “ very well,” and that I was
in via ad Professionem, on the road to the grade of pro-
fessed. I had therefore “ attained that degree of philo-
sophical and theological culture which suffices for teaching
both subjects satisfactorily.”

I allude to my scholarly qualification within the Order
because, very soon after I left it, doubts on the subject were
publicly strewn about, originating in Ultramontane Jesuit
sources, which, of course, found the readiest credence.
For what tales are not told and believed of an “ apostate ” ?
The Kolnische Volkszeitung, doubtless inspired by Jesuits,
even went so far as to hint at insanity. Ecrasez V infame !

CHAPTER XXIII

THE ATTITUDE OF THE ORDER TO LEARNING

This attitude has really been sufficiently characterised in
the previous section. But as the Jesuit Order makes
special claims to learning, and as even in the non-Ultra-
montane world this view is widely spread, a further con-
sideration of the subject from other, more general points
of view seems justified.

Of course the principles which the Roman Church sets
up in regard to its conception of knowledge and freedom
of research are also the principles of the Jesuit Order.

These principles are expressed in innumerable official
Papal utterances, of which I shall only quote a few of the
more modern ones.

1. Provincial Council of Cologne (tit. 1, c. 6) (especially
confirmed by the Pope). 2. A letter of Pius IX. to the
Archbishop of Munich of December 21st, 1863. 3. Sylla-

bus of Pius IX., of December 8th, 1864. 4. Vatican
Council of the year 1870. 5. Constitution of Leo XIII.,
Officiorum ac munerum of January 25th, 1897. 6. Motu

proprio of Pius X. of December 18th, 1903. 7. Syllabus of

Pius X. (against Modernism) of September 8th, 1907.*

All these manifestoes are included, so far as their
contents are concerned, in the “ infallible ” pronounce-
ment of the Vatican Council :

* For the wording, see my book, Die Katholisch-theologischen Fakultaten im
Organismus dev preussischen Staatsuniversitaten (Leipzig, Breitkopf u. Hart el).

pp. 22-38.

270

2 yi

The Order and Learning

“ II anyone asserts that human knowledge should
develop so freely that its assertions, even when they are
opposed to revealed doctrine, are to be regarded as true
and cannot be condemned by the Church, he shall be
excommunicated.” *

These Roman principles as to learning find their
practical application in the Index, the rules of which were
remodelled in 1900 by Leo XIII. and suspended as a
Damocles’ sword over the whole output of Catholic learning.

To this must be added Rome’s final right of decision in
so-called dogmatic facts (facta dogmatica) and dogmatic
texts ( textus dogmatici), by which vast domains of historical
knowledge are withdrawn from free research, f

But even the silent recognition of the bondage of all
knowledge assumed by the authoritative Roman doctrine
did not suffice the Jesuit Order. It therefore declared, in
the 12th decree of the 23rd General Congregation of 1883 :

“ Since in such a mass of errors, which steal in everywhere and
in our own day have frequently been condemned by the Roman
See, it is to be feared that some of our own members, too, may be
attacked by this plague, the General Congregation declares that
our Society is to abide by the doctrine contained in the encyclical
Quanta cura of December 8th, 1864, of Pius IX., and reject, as
it always has rejected, all errors rejected by the Syllabus of this
same Pope. But since some Provinces [of the Order] have demanded
the particular condemnation of so-called Liberal Catholicism, the
General Congregation gladly accedes to this request, and earnestly
entreats the Venerable Father General to have a care that this
plague is by all means averted from our Society.”]:

Thus the Order solemnly gave its consent to the
destruction, initiated by Rome, of teaching and learning.
Thus from its very inception Modernism (under the name

* Sess. 3, c. 4, de fid. et. rat. cun. 2.

f Cf. my work Die Katholisch-theologischen Fakultaten im Organismus der
preussischen Staatsuniversitaten f pp. 39-46.

J Monum. Germ. paed. f 2, 117.

272

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

of Liberal Catholicism) was outlawed, and how this sentence
of outlawry was carried out has been seen in our own
day by the tragic fate of the Jesuits Tyrrell and Bartoli.

The attitude of the Order to learning furnishes the
contents of a book, published at Innsbruck with the
imprimatur of the Order and the ecclesiastical authorities
by the Jesuit Dr. Josef Donat, Royal and Imperial Pro-
fessor at the University of Innsbruck, in the year 1910 ,
Die Freiheit der Wissenschaft , ein Gang durch das moderne
Geistesleben. There is nothing of any novelty in the
book, nor is it singular of its kind, but it contains the old
opposition to free research, the old submission to the
Roman censorship in the newest forms :

“ Those who acknowledge the Christian [i.e. Catholic] con-
ception of the world, cannot accept this freedom of thought and
knowledge [just characterised as freedom from the Syllabus and
Index]. Here [in opposition to the Church] is the true reason why
thousands, in whom Kant’s autonomy in thought has become the
veritable sinew of their intellectual life, will not hear of any guidance
by revelation and the Church. They can no longer endure the
idea of letting their reason unhesitatingly accept the truth from
an external authority [the Papacy]. ... It is not knowledge
which the Church attacks, but error ; not truth, but the emancipa-
tion of the human intellect from submission to the authority of
God, which comes forward under the disguise of scientific truth.
. . . If it is an infallible dogma, which is opposed [to a scientific
result], the believer soon finds the conflict springing from his
investigations at an end. For he knows then the value of his
hypothesis, that it is no true progress, but error. . . . Thus the
philosophical errors of the present day are almost invariably opposed
to infallible dogmas, for the most part fundamental doctrines of
the Christian religion. These are the title deeds, on the strength of
which revelation and the Church impress on the investigator the duty
not to set his own opinions in opposition to religious doctrines,
because no opposition can continue between faith and reason. . . .
If the Catholic investigator finds his scientific opinion in opposition

The Order and Learning 273

to a not infallible declaration [e.g. the decision of a Roman Cardinals’
Congregation, as in the case of Galileo] he will maintain an impartial
attitude and once more test his views in the sight of God. If he
is compelled to admit calmly to himself that his views are not so
convincing as to hold their own in face of so high an authority,
directed by the Holy Spirit, he will humbly renounce the natural
satisfaction at being allowed to retain his opinion, remembering
that true wisdom is convinced of the fallibility of human reason
and is ready and willing to accept instruction from a God-directed
authority. . . . Everything that is good and profitable in modern
knowledge remains untouched by the Syllabus ; it only attacks
what is anti-Christian in our time and our leading ideas. It is not
the freedom of knowledge which is condemned, but that liberal
freedom which shakes off the yoke of belief. The ecclesiastical
book -legislation [the Index] consists mainly of two factors : firstly,
the preventive censorship ; certain books must be subjected to
examination before publication : secondly, the prohibition of books
that have already appeared. . . . Catholic scholars who have
any knowledge of the supernatural mission of their Church will
surrender themselves with humble confidence to its direction [in
matters of knowledge]. . . . Those who are convinced that even
in our generation the Christian faith is the noblest inheritance
handed down from the past, and one which it is essential to main-
tain, will raise no objection if the Church does not withdraw even
before men like Kant, Spinoza, Schopenhauer, Strauss [in the
application of the power of the Index]. . . . Ranke’s History of
the Popes has been placed on the Index, because it disparages the
constitution and doctrines of the Catholic Church, not because it
speaks the truth about the Popes.”*

This exposition is prefaced by the Jesuit author, in
unconscious irony and absolute failure to grasp its meaning,
by Goethe’s saying — and after all, why should not Goethe
be quoted on behalf of Syllabus and Index ? —

* Donat. Die Freiheit der Wissenschaft, ein Gang durch das moderne Geistes -
leben (Innsbruck), pp. 63, 88 et seq , 123, 128 et seq ., 193, 207, 209, 213. In this
last passage, then, the Church claims dominion even over history.

274

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

“ Vergebens werden ungebundene Geister
Nach der Vollendung reiner Hohe streben :

Wer Grosses will , muss sich zusammenraffen,

In der Beschrdnkung zeigt sich erst der Meister
Und das Gesetz erst kann uns Freiheit gebenF*

A pendant to the teaching of the Austrian Jesuit is
supplied by the German Jesuit Hilgers, who in an extensive
work, 638 pages, large octavo, published in 1904, on The
Index of Forbidden Books , sets forth the necessity and utility
of this Roman censorship and its supervision of learning,
especially in our own day. On the compelling power of
the Index, Hilgers writes :

“ By the republication of the Index in the year 1900 the Church
has not only opportunely adapted its legislation to the needs of
the age, but also, in the consciousness of its right and duty, pro-
claimed it to the whole world, and impressed it afresh on Catholics
of every nation. All Catholics of all lands will feel in conscience
bound faithfully to observe these laws, as the tenor of this
constitution distinctly requires, and a further decree of the Con-
gregation of the Index still more expressly commands. . . .
The justification and utility of the preventive censorship is to be
sought in the divine teaching and pastoral office of the Church,
like that of the prohibitive censorship. This ecclesiastical measure
manifests itself not only as the love of a mother for the faithful,
but also as paternal precaution in face of authors and writers, who
are by it prevented from sowing tares. . . . It is forbidden under
the severest penalties even to offer dynamite for sale. Is it excessive
severity if the laws of the Church admonish booksellers that all
forbidden books may only be offered for sale after seeking the easily
granted ecclesiastical permission, and may only be sold to those
persons of whom the sellers may reasonably assume that they
demand them for a lawful purpose ? ... We may, therefore,
surely assert that men of learning such as professors of theology
and history [philologists have already been mentioned] are as much

* From one of Goethe’s sonnets.

The Order and Learning 275

bound as others to seek a dispensation from the prohibition of
books from the ecclesiastical authority.”*

As already shown there is nothing either new or
remarkable in the utterances of these two Jesuits. On
the contrary, it would be new and remarkable if Jesuits
did not speak thus, for these are the views demanded by
the Ultramontane clerical point of view. But no further
proof is needed to show that they are incompatible with
free research ; and it was for this reason that I quoted
the utterances of Donat and Hilgers.

But is not all this in opposition to the great activity
the Jesuit Order actually displays in the domain of
knowledge ? There is no other Order of the Roman
Church which effects so much in the sphere of learning,
and many Jesuits have achieved notable success in various
subjects. Jesuit theory may therefore be directed against
knowledge, but Jesuit practice is on her side.

The answer to this objection brings out in even sharper
light the innate constitutional ignorance of the Order.

Where among the innumerable Jesuit writers (the
Jesuit Sommervogel fills several quarto volumes with their
names and works) is one to be found who in that domain
of knowledge, which more than any other is the test of
free, creative thought, philosophy, has produced a single
new idea or even opened out a single fresh vista ? In spite
of whole libraries of folio volumes on philosophy written
by Jesuits, we find here a vacuum, which speaks more
eloquently than any arguments. No Jesuit has ever gone
beyond scholasticism and Thomas Aquinas. The bulky
works of a Suarez, Sanchez, Becanus, Molina, de Lugo
and, to mention the most recent, a Tongiorgi, Palmieri,
Liberatore, Kleutgen, Pesch, Frick, Lehmen, are nothing
but endless repetitions and variations on the philosophical

Hilgers, Index der vcrloicnen Buclicr (Freiburg), pp. 25, 42, 43, 51.

276 Fourteen Years a Jesuit

ideas of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, which in
their turn are the outcome of Aristotelean thought. Whether
the Jesuit work on philosophy has appeared at Rome or
Madrid, Paris or Lisbon, in Germany, Belgium, or England,
whether it dates from the sixteenth, nineteenth, or twentieth
century, the contents, in spite of all differences of form
and language, are everywhere the same. This sterility,
this complete lack of creative intellectual power, is enforced
with iron necessity, by the position which the Order in
its Constitutions assigns to philosophy. As we have
already seen, it is the handmaid, the servant of theology ;
and Jesuit-Ultramontane theology is essentially stationary
and incapable of development. For how should or could
the handmaid rise above the mistress ; how could she go
along a road of her own, when she is bound by blind
obedience and innumerable directions to the girdle of her
employer ? I repeat : For the learning of an organisa-
tion its attitude to philosophy (if it is at all concerned
with it) is the test, since it is the branch of knowledge
which depends most on the original activity of the intellect.
Tried by this test, Jesuit learning does not approve itself
true metal, at any rate not of its own prospecting. It
is “ ancient ” wisdom (as the twenty-third General Con-
gregation expressed it), in the best case in a new dress,
usually without even this.

For theology matters are even simpler. It goes along
“ fixed highroads ” towards goals unchangeably set up at
the beginning. Here certainly neither freedom nor learn-
ing is to be found.

The same may be said of all branches of knowledge,
which, either actually or by the fiat of Rome, “ are con-
nected with philosophy and theology ” : ethics, sociology,
economics. There too we may see books of enormous
size but the smallest actual achievement. There too the
Jesuit revolves in a circle, the centre of which is the

The Order and Learning 277

authority, and its circumference the thought of past
ages. True, he understands how to draw modern cir-
cumstances and things into this circle, above all by wide
reading and a genius for quotation to give his works an
appearance of scholarly research and genuine learning
(and here the German Jesuits Cathrein and the brothers
Tilmann and Heinrich Pesch have been particularly
successful), but closer examination shows that the
“ modern ” writers on ethics, economics and sociology
move along in ancient grooves and have only given a
modern equipment to the vehicle of their learning.

Now for the other branches of learning and the liberal
arts. There is none which the Jesuit Order has not
approached, and there are several which it has helped to
advance. They are at work in astronomy, mathematics,
geology, palaeontology, Assyriology, zoology, botany,
biology, physics, optics, acoustics, chemistry, philology,
literature, history, language, art in all its forms, archae-
ology, and a twentieth- century Jesuit, Balthasar Wilhelm,
S.J., has even written on aeronautics.* On many of
these domains they move with apparent freedom, examine
and bring to light new results, and thus work apparently
in a scholarly manner.

The cause of this apparent intellectual freedom lies, in
the first place, in the subjects themselves, which are for
the most part ( e.g . astronomy, mathematics, botany, art,
archaeology, optics, acoustics, physics, chemistry) not at
all or not so much dependent on philosophy and theology ;
the “ ancient wisdom,” to which everything must be
referred back, hardly exists here, and accordingly a Jesuit
is comparatively free in his researches and able to bring
to light new and good results. Even in the domain of
secular and ecclesiastical history Jesuit principles leave
some scope for detailed research. And therefore here

* Die An f tinge der Lvftschifjahrt.

278 Fourteen Years a Jesuit

too we meet with conspicuous Jesuit achievements. I
recall a large number of smaller biographies, articles in
learned reviews, and above all great collective works,
e.g. The Acta Sanctorum, the Collection of Councils by the
Jesuit Labbe, the Collectio Lacensis, etc. But in estimating
the scholarly value of such achievements, we must never
forget (1) that they are all writings with a special aim,
and have not originated in independent, unprejudiced
research, but with the object of serving the Church and
the Order and defending “ Catholic truth ” ; and (2) that
every one of them, single articles as well as folio volumes,
must pass the censorship of the Order before it can be
published.

There is a very general opinion, widely spread but
incorrect, that the Jesuit Order has achieved great things
in the domain of knowledge. If we realise how long the
Order has existed and the many thousand members it
has had in the course of centuries, drawn from the best
classes of the population and, therefore, with natural
abilities, and the privacy in which they work, and compare
the result achieved in these conditions, so propitious for
learning and study, they appear but meagre, in spite of
some signal achievements.

The Order has never at any time been a real promoter
of learning, still less has it helped to open up new paths.
The very opposite is the case ; for, taken as a whole, it
has always served as a drag on the advancement of
knowledge. On this point the testimony of history
coincides with that of scholars. Thus Kink, the his-
torian of the University of Vienna, who is anything but
anti-Jesuit, admits :

“ Another mistake they made in their methods of instruction
was their dependence on scholasticism, to which they gave the
reins more and more. ... In the professorial chairs this was
particularly remarkable ; especially after the Society had gained

The Order and Learning 279

undisputed hegemony over the other orders and the secular clergy,
the comfortable security of exclusive possession and the removal
of all control, if only from psychological reasons, were an induce-
ment to effeminacy and a hindrance to further advance, when the
impulse from without was lacking. And as they had admitted
scholasticism into their midst, the abuses, which are as it were
inborn in this method, made way, at first imperceptibly, then
gradually more clearly and markedly. Among these was an
unfaithful dialectic, which delighted in setting up and opposing
abstruse theories and with dogmatic stubbornness rejected every
simple reconciliation, and sometimes appealing to the party spirit
of the whole community, adhered to the pronouncement once
made, or even in some cases by skilful tacking sought to avoid
submission to the higher authority. ... At last they were even
reproached with relaxation in their system of ethics and conduct
of discipline ; so that authoritative voices were raised, which
though not hostile in principle asserted that, so far as their edu-
cational work was concerned, they had not been able to resist
degeneracy.”*

In a memorial of November 5th, 1757, to the Empress
Maria Theresa, van Swieten says :

“ Facts have shown that the studies at the University [of
Vienna] were in an unsatisfactory condition, since the Society had
been incorporated with it. ... It is consequently clear that it
has not attained the goal which the two Emperors [Ferdinand I.
and II.] had set before them. On the contrary, all the Universities
which came under Jesuit rule have fallen into decay. Graz, Olmiitz,
Tyrnau are striking instances. It would certainly have been far
better if the University had never been united with the Jesuit
Order.”]*

Maria Theresa herself had no very high opinion of
Jesuit learning. When the Court Commission of Studies,
in 1775, proposed to her the foundation of an Academy of

* Kink, Geschichte der kaiserlichen Universitat Wien (Vienna, 1854), I., 414-420.
t Ibid., I., 490.

280

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

Science, suggesting that a beginning should be made with
three Jesuit teachers, Hell for Astronomy, Scharfer for
Physics, Mako for Mathematics, along with Professor
Jacquin, she said :

“ I could not make up my mind to begin an academie des sciences
with three ex-Jesuits and a professor of Chemistry, however ex-
cellent. We should make ourselves ridiculous in the eyes of the
world. ... I do not consider the Abbe Hell strong enough ;
and it would repay neither the time nor the trouble to found some-
thing even worse than the existing academies.”*

A vivid picture of the inferior scholarship of the Jesuit
Order at the University of Freiburg i. Br. is afforded
by Schreiber. He quotes from the records subjects
chosen for disputation by the Jesuits in the course of a
good many years :

On September 17th, 1621 : How was it possible for
the head of Symmachus, unjustly put to death by him,
to appear to the Arian King Theodoric in the head of a
boiled fish ? Through what power or grace was Boethius
able to carry, in his hands and actually speaking, to the
nearest church the head which the King had struck off ?
What was the nature of those cauldrons into which this
Theodoric was cast after his death by Pope John and
Symmachus ? and how was their heat maintained ? On
April 26th, 1623 : Was the corpse of the Emperor Julian
thrown out of the earth by natural forces ? On June 12th,
1623, thirty-six magistrands disputed on the questions :
Whether there was a place of descent to Hades, and where
it was situated ? Whether the worms that gnaw the bodies
of the damned can live in fire through natural power ?
Whether it was probable that springs were heated and
metals melted by hell fire ? On September 7th, 1629 :
Whether this was a probable deduction : He devotes no

* From the Archives of the Royal Imperial Commission on Studies, quoted by
Kink, I., 510.

The Order and Learning 281

care to his clothes, therefore he is a genius. On July 23rd,
1658 : Who was the Promotor who conferred the degree
of magister on the Virgin Mary ? Is the cloak with which
Mary covers those whom she protects the mantle of philo-
sophy ? Was the lightning which consumed the wheel
on which St. Catherine was to be torn a natural phenom-
enon ? On July 13th, 1711 : Is the philosopher or the
poet in greater danger of lying ? On January 29th, 1729 :
Does the divining-rod discover treasure by natural means ?
Does the ointment of arms ( unguentum armarium) heal
the wounds of the absent by natural sympathy ? Why
does the blood of a murdered man boil when the murderer
approaches him ? On August 17th, 1743 : Were the
conditions of the present day foreseen by Aristotle and
proclaimed by the comet of the previous year ? *

However much allowance we may make for the taste
of the age and the “ red tape ” which enwrapped all
learning, we cannot but condemn the bad taste and ignor-
ance of such disputation themes. While the Jesuits were
regaling themselves and their pupils with such fare, the
rest of the world, in which Kepler, Galileo, Newton,
Leibnitz, Descartes, etc., were living and working, had
long ago left behind these monstrous absurdities. Even
some of the students revolted against such “ knowledge ” ;
for the minutes report that on July 4th, 1743, Frehner, an
aspirant for the doctorate, “ threw St. Barbara with her
questions at the feet of his examiner [the Jesuit Ebner],
with an expression of contempt.”!

A personal experience may serve to show the spirit
that prevails even in the most learned circles of the Jesuit
Order. Once, at Exaeten, during the mid-day recreation,
we were discussing the story of the Creation. I expressed
the opinion that geology and palaeontology clearly proved

* Geschichte der Albert Ludwigs Universitat zu Freiburg (Freiburg, 1868), 2,
421 el seq. t Schreiber, 2, 42o.

282

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

that the world with its flora and fauna had taken not a
few days, but periods of considerable length, to come into
being. I was indignantly contradicted by the Jesuit
Lehmkuhl, the moral-theological celebrity of the Order ; in
his view the strata, petrifactions, etc., were no disproof
of the six days’ creation, for God could have introduced
all these, without their having had any previous existence,
into the interior of the earth. And when I asked whether
he would also include coprolites among the works of God’s
creation he gave a decided affirmative. Moreover, he
denounced me to the Rector for “ liberal opinions.”

There is one peculiarity of Jesuit learning as to which
I desire to say a few words. Knowledge without objective
truth (if, indeed, there be such a thing) and without sub-
jective truthfulness is impossible. The investigator must
reproduce as he finds them the results of his investigations
which he recognises as true, whether they prove agreeable
to him or the opposite. If he alters or adapts them to
fit in with definite aims or his own religious or political
attitude, he is guilty of falsification.

But Jesuit knowledge, in every domain where the in-
terests of the Order and the Roman Church are concerned,
is an unscrupulous and skilful falsification. A weighty
accusation, but in view of the facts completely justified.

In proof I will bring forward only one instance, which,
in view of its importance, may count as a test case — the
work of the German Jesuit Duhr. This single instance will
suffice, because Duhr is the officially appointed histori-
ographer of the German Province. The archives of the
Order are at his disposal, and his numerous historical
works on the Order have been approved by its censorship.
His work may therefore be regarded not as that of an
individual but of the Order, representing the history of
the Order as written and circulated by the Order itself.

Again and again, both in this book and in my work

The Order and Learning 283

on the Papacy,* have I convicted Duhr of untruthfulness
and falsification.

The Munich historian, Sigmund Kiezler, deals very
severely with Duhr, again and again convicting him of
misrepresentation and untruthfulness, f

The Jesuitenfabdn, so frequently quoted in this book,
supply particularly abundant material for estimating Duhr’s
love of truth. I will give a few instances : —

In order to disprove the genuineness of the Monita
Secreta, Duhr J emphasises the opposition between Chap. IV.
of the Monita, on the political activity of Jesuits and the
official Instruction of General Acquaviva to the confessors
of princes, which apparently prohibits political activity.
Duhr does not mention that besides this “ official Instruc-
tion ” there is also a secret one, which contains very differ-
ent directions. This silence is the more significant as
Duhr refers to Dudik for Acquaviva’s official Instruction,
while it is just Dudik who made public the secret Instruc-
tions.

Duhr has a special preference for quoting the Austrian
historian Gindely ; but he suppresses everything unfavour-
able that Gindely says of the Jesuits. A particularly
striking instance is the false impression created by this
means as to Gindely’s opinion of the position and influence
of the Jesuit Lamormaini in his character of confessor to
the Emperor Ferdinand II. By means of a long quotation
from Gindely, Duhr “ proves ” the beneficent and purely
religious character of Lamormaini’s influence on the
Emperor. But he omits Gindely’s verdict on Lamor-
maini’s share in the first dertosition of Wallenstein, as also
Dudik’s revelation from sources in the archives as to
Lamormaini’s decisive influence on his second deposition^

* Das Papsttum in seiner sozial-kulturdlen Wirkshamkeit.

f Historische Zeitschrift. New Series, Vol. 4S, pp. 245-256.

J Jcsuitenfabeln , p, 100, § Ibid. y 845 et seq.

284

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

In dealing with the Gunpowder Plot, planned with
the complicity of the Jesuits, Duhr does not even mention
Jardine’s standard work, A Narrative of the Gunpowder
Plot. Probably because, as shown in a previous chapter,
Jardine quotes from the records much that is unfavour-
able to the Jesuit Garnet, Provincial of the English
Province.*

In the chapter “ Ignatius Loyola founded the Jesuit
Order for the extirpation of Protestantism,” Duhr adduces
all manner of proofs to show that the Jesuit Order was not
founded against Protestantism, but omits the very signi-
ficant passage from the bull of Pope Urban VIII. (1623),
which decrees the canonisation of Ignatius Loyola. This
omission is the more noteworthy, since a bull of canonisation
is one of the most important Papal documents. But that
is the very reason for omitting it. This sort of thing must
be kept from Duhr’s circle of readers. f

In order to set the charitable disposition of the Jesuit
Order in as favourable a light as possible, Duhr falsifies
the original text of an ordinance for the professed house
at Vienna in 1635. While the words of the Ordinance $
are “ concerning the remains of the food to be dis-
tributed at the door of the professed-house of the Society
of Jesus at Vienna to poor students ” (de reliquis ciborum,
etc.), Duhr gives as a literal quotation in quotation marks :
“ Concerning the distribution of food, etc.” The word
“ remains ” would have weakened the impression of
benevolence. §

* J esuitenfabeln, 1-33. f Ibid^ 295. J Mon. Germ, faed, 16-245.

§ Duhr, 380. Falsifications of the text are a very common Jesuit means of
embellishment. The English Jesuit Foley was commissioned by the Order to
publish eight large volumes of Records, which furnish a collection of documents
concerning the Jesuits in England. The Catholic historian, Taunton, says of
this work in the preface to his History of the Jesuits in England , p. viii. : “ Foley’s
value consists almost as much in his omissions as in his admissions. And I am
bound to remark that I have found him at a critical point quietly leaving out,
without any signs of omission, an essential part of a document which was adverse

The Order and Learning 285

This anthology, incomplete as it is, illustrative of the
love of truth evinced in the writings of Duhr, will be most
suitably concluded by a quotation from Duhr himself :

“ Falsification remains falsification, and is always reprehensible,
even when it is intended to attain or sanctify the most sacred
ends.”*

“ If we find an author untrustworthy in one particular, we are
bound in the first instance to regard as correspondingly untrust-
worthy all his statements that fall under this heading.”f

The Jesuit Duhr is a type. As is he, so are they all.
No dependence is to be placed on works or documents
published by Jesuits. The Jesuit axiom, “ The end
sanctifies the means,” is the first principle of Jesuit
authorship. The end, the [defence of the Order and its
glorification, sanctifies every falsification.

to his case.” And Taunton supplies the proof for his weighty accusation on p. 313,
where he gives in full the account of the conversation between the Jesuit Oldcome,
imprisoned in the Tower on a charge of high treason, and Garnet, restoring
Garnet’s admission of avowal of treason “ quietly omitted by Foley, who, though
professing to quote Gerard, gives no signs of omission.”

* GeschicMe der Jesuiten in den Landern deutscher Zunge (Freiburg, 1907),
Preface, p. v.

f J esuitenfabeln. 4th ed., p. 785.

CHAPTER XXIV

JESUIT MORALITY

Are we really justified in speaking of “ Jesuit morality ” ?
Is not that to which we apply the term the very same
as the official morality of the Ultramontane Roman
Catholic Church ? Both questions may be answered in
the affirmative, and it is this very affirmation of two
seemingly contradictory statements that accentuates most
markedly the reality, danger and power of the conception
designated as Jesuit morality.

There is no other domain in which Jesuitism has
succeeded so completely in forcing its domination on
Catholicism as that of Moral Theology. The develop-
ment which the practice of the confessional, i.e. the
domination of the private and public life of Catholics
by means of the confessional, has attained since the end
of the sixteenth century within the Church of Rome —
and it is the practice of the confessional which is concealed
under the term Moral Theology — has been mainly brought
about by the moral theologians of the Jesuit Order. The
present-day Catholic morality is penetrated throughout
with Jesuit morality.

This important fact is most strikingly expressed by
the circumstance that the greatest authority on Moral
Theology in the Romish Church, Alfonso Maria di Liguori
(died 1787), whom Gregory XVI. canonised in 1839, and
Pius IX., in 1871, honoured with the rank and dignity
of a doctor of the Church, was merely the commentator

286

Jesuit Morality 287

of the moral theologians of the Jesuit Order, especially
the two most influential, Busenbaum and Lacroix.*

“ Liguori’s teaching,” says the official historian of the
Order, Cretineau-Joly, “ is identical with the teaching of
the theologians of the Society [of Jesus]. . . . His
canonisation was, therefore, the justification of the casuists
of the Society, and especially of Busenbaum.”f And the
Jesuit Montezon triumphantly asserts : “ The teaching of
the Jesuits was solemnly declared by the Church to be
secured against all censure by the verdict passed on the
moral theology of Liguori at his beatification. For even
if the Jesuits were not expressly named in the proceedings
the verdict is directly concerned with their theology,
which the venerable Bishop [Liguori] had adopted as his
own. . . . Nihil censura dignum (Nothing deserving of

censure or offending against faith and morals is to be
found in the moral -theology of Liguori), thus says the
decree [of the Congregation of Rites, of May 14, 1803],
and afterwards another Roman tribunal [the holy
poenitentiarie of July 5, 1831] declared that every con-
fessor might without further examination abide by all
the decisions of Liguori. That is a complete and solemn
apology for Jesuit doctrine.”];

Thus it appears that the assertion constantly repeated
and put forward as a screen, that there is no such thing
as Jesuit morality, and that the morality of the Order is
that of the Catholic Church, is but apparently true, v, The
real truth is that the morality of the Jesuit Order has
become the morality of the Catholic Church.

Just as Ultramontanism for a clear thousand^years
(since the days of Gregory VII.) has dominated Cathol-

* For further details about Liguori and his dependence on Jesuit morality,
see my book Das Papsttum , etc., II., pp. 70-157.

-f Cretineau-Joly, G, 231.

{ Sainte-Beuve, Port Royal , I., 52G : Dollinger-Reusch, Moralslreitigkciten , P I.,
35G

288

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

icism in the domains of dogma, ecclesiastical polity and
general culture, so Jesuitism, which is Ultramontanism
raised to a higher power, has for four centuries dominated
the morality of Catholicism.

A specially convincing proof of this domination has
been afforded by a declaration, made by the professors
of the priestly seminary at Mayence in the year 1868 , in
favour of the moral theology of the Jesuit Gury, which
says :

“ We will only record the circumstance that this text-
book is in use at numerous educational establishments
in Germany, Italy, France, Belgium, England and North
America.”*

How this domination began, gained a firm footing and
maintained it to the present day, cannot be set forth here.
At any rate it exists, and the stages on its triumphal
progress are the moral theological works of the Jesuits
(quoted in alphabetical, not chronological, order) : Amicus,
Azor, Ballerini, Burghaber, Busenbaum, Cardenas, Castra-
palao, Coninck, Escobar, Filliuci, Gobat, Gury, Haunold,
Hurtado, Lacroix, Laymann, Lehmkuhl, Lessius, Lugo,
Mazotta, Moya, Palmieri, Reuter, Sabetti, Sanchez,
Scaramelli, Schmalzgrueber, Stoz, Tamburini, Valen-
tia, Vasquez, Vogler, Voit, Zaccaria, and many
others.

I must content myself with extracts from works on
Jesuit morality. For a more detailed account, especially
as regards Probabilism, Casuistry and Confession, I must
refer my readers to the second volume of my book on the
Papacy. The quotations are, of course, selected with a
view to a characterisation of the Jesuit Order, i.e. I shall
set forth those moral-theological dogmas of the Order
which will assist the recognition of its fundamental con-
ceptions of morals and ethics, and in order as far as possible

* Darmstadter Allgemein. Kirchenzeitimg (1868), No. 41.

Jesuit Morality 289

to comprise everything in one chapter, I use the words
Morals and Ethics in their widest acceptation.

I intend here to give no extracts or disquisitions
relating to the seventh commandment and marriage.
This unpleasant subject, so rendered by Jesuit moral

theology, has been treated in detail in the work above
quoted.*

Love and marriage, the most glorious sources of
human happiness and human perfection, have been
overspread with slime and filth by the spiritual direction
and moral theology of the Jesuits. The natural human
and, on that account, noble sexual life has been degraded
by their moral theological examinations, and because this
was and is done under the shelter of Christianity, Chris-
tianity too was degraded. A man who by his own

confession was versed in sexual perversion, Ludovico
Sergardi, afterwards Eoman Cardinal and the friend of
Alexander VII., bears testimony thus :

“ Moral theology has attained to such a pitch that it is necessary
to warn uncorrupted youths against having anything to do with
it, lest they entangle themselves in shameful snares and become
victims of unchastity. For what abominations do not the moral
theologians set before the public ! Among all the brothels of the
Suburra, there is none which might not be called chaste compared
with the contents of these books. I myself, who was a leader of
immoral youths and often desecrated my years by unchastity,
confess that on reading Sanchez [one of the leading moral theo-
logians of the Jesuit Order, whose chief work on Marriage is to this
day a classic in the Order] I found myself blushing on more than
one occasion, and that his writings have taught me more abomina-
tions than I could have learnt from the most brazen of prostitutes.
Ovid, the past-master in the Art of Love, Horace the daring, and
Tibullus the libertine, if compared with Sanchea, seem fitted to
preside over an educational establishment for young ladies. For

* Das Pap3ttujn , etc., II., 229-410.

7

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

290

in their case the witty expression, at any rate, conceals the wicked-
ness, but in Sanchez unadulterated libertinism and uncovered lust
range at will.”*

I shall preface my extracts from Jesuit treatises on
fundamental questions of morals and ethics by criticisms
of Jesuit morality uttered by men whose knowledge of
the subject and good Catholic sentiments are beyond
suspicion. The only non-Catholic among the number is
Leibnitz. His importance as a personality, a connoisseur
and not unfriendly critic of the Jesuit Order justify his
admission here.

I shall also quote Jesuit critics on the morality of their
Order, since their opinion on this matter is obviously of
special value.

From Abbe de Ranee, founder of the Trappist Order,
and an intimate friend of Bossuet :

“ The morality of most Molinists [Jesuits, so called after the
Jesuit Molina] is so corrupt, their principles are so opposed to the
sanctity of the Gospels and all the rules and exhortations which
Jesus Christ has given us by His words and through His saints,
that nothing is more painful to me than to see how my name is
used to give authority to opinions which I detest with my whole
heart. . . . What surprises as well as grieves me is that in regard
to this matter the whole world is dumb, and that even those who
regard themselves as zealous and pious, observe the deepest silence,
as though anything in the Church were more important than to
maintain purity of faith in the guidance of souls and the direction
of morals. . . . Unless God takes pity on the world and subverts
the zeal which is applied to destroying right principles and replacing
them by wrongful ones, the evil will continue to increase and we
shall soon see an almost universal devastation.” t

Ranee also relates how the Jesuits revenged them-

* Ludov. Sergardii, Orationes (Lucca, 1783), p. 205. D.-R., I., 117.

f Lettres de A. J. Le Boiithillier de Ranee, published by B. Gonod (Paris, 1864)*
pp. 358-365, from Dollinger-Reusch, I., 113 et seq.

Jesuit Morality 291

selves for his judgment on their morality, and thus supplies
a fresh condemnation of Jesuit morality :

“ Every day brings me fresh experience of the injustice and
violence of those persons known as Molinists. They shrink from
no calumny which may serve to destroy my reputation. . . .
Their false moral principles allow them to utter against me all the
calumnies inspired by envy and passion. 55 *

The Papal Nuncio at Vienna, Francesco Buonvisi
(afterwards Cardinal), wrote on May 6, 1688, to the Abbot
Sfondrati :

“ I do not like to see him [the Emperor Leopold I.] surrounded
by these little foxes [the Jesuits], who ruin everything by prob-
abilism, saying that in certain cases it is permitted to follow the
less probable view, reserving to themselves the right to advise
the prince to follow this on the pretence that the weal of the State
requires it, in order to prevent greater evils. 5 5 f

The Augustinian monk, Giovanni Berti, says :

“ They [the Jesuits] play various parts ; one in the pulpit,
another in the confessional, one in the professor’s chair, another
in China. In the pulpit they are disciples of Poemi, in the con-
fessional of Guimenius [the pseudonym of the ultra-lax Jesuit
Moya], in the professorial chair of Molina, at court of Varroda,
in Europe of Mascarenhas, in China of Le Tellier, not to say of
Confucius. As occasion requires they are now zealous priests, now
lax moralists, now quarrelsome scholastics, now followers of Machia-
velli, now apparent Christians, now open idolaters. 55 ];

Cardinal Aguirre, in a letter dated April 26, 1693,
writes to the King of Spain :

. . . It is a question of the boundless liberty with which
many modern writers, especially Jesuits, allow very lax opinions

* Lettres de A. J . Le Boulhillier de Rand, p. 355.

f Memorie per servirc alia storia politica del Card. Fr. Buonvisi (Lucca, ISIS),
2,233. Ibid. I., 105.

t Lcttera di Fra Guidone Zoccolante (1753), p. 51. Ibid. I., 106.

292

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

to be printed and also teach, and apply them practically. Alex-
ander VII. condemned forty-five of these opinions, Innocent XI.
pronounced sixty-five dangerous and scandalous, and finally
Alexander VIII. condemned two, one as heretical, the other as
erroneous and subversive of morality. The General [of the Jesuits,
Thyrsus Gonzalez], in order to counteract this evil, has ordered
a book to be printed in Germany, which Innocent XI. has frequently
called upon him to publish. But his subordinates, instead of
showing gratitude and trying to amend, have taken up arms against
him. Some of them declare that he is a Jannsenist — a shameful
calumny, since he has no dealings whatever with the condemned
principles of Jannsen, and has indeed combated them in his book
most emphatically. . . . It is a matter of common knowledge
that many Jesuits have also applied the epithet 4 Jannsenist,’ to
Pope Innocent XI., who condemned so many of their lax opinions.
They apply the same epithet to all the many learned and pious
prelates, doctors and writers who have written against their lax
morality.”*

The Dominican Concina, whom even the Jesuit Cordara
calls a righteous man, says :

“ For more than a century and a half Christian morality has
had to endure the onset of bad doctrines. . . . This method
permeates the whole of casuistic theology, and inflicts fatal wounds
on almost every part of its body. Not content with perverting
written law, it has almost wiped out all trace of that inscribed by
nature in the heart of man. . . . There is nothing too lax, unjust,
or shameful, not to say godless, for them to represent through the
medium of unlimited probabilism as pious, decent and holy. That
is the worst of all evils, the pestilential source which brings ruin
to souls. . . . They have found a middle road, not quite a broad
way, so as not to call forth any involuntary alarm, nor yet straight
and narrow, thus pandering to the evil inclinations of men, recon-
ciling the world and the Gospel and transforming rough roads into

* For the Spanish original, see Patuzzi, Lettere 6, LXXXII. For an Italian
translation, Dollinger-B-eusch, II., 115 et seq .

Jesuit Morality 293

smooth ones. This middle road has probably carried more souls
to hell than the broad way.”*

Johann Adam Mohler, Professor at the University of
Tubingen, and unquestionably the greatest Catholic theo-
logian of the nineteenth century, author of the rightly
renowned Symbolih , writes :

“ Moral theology has sustained a specially deleterious influence
through them [the Jesuits]. The reason whose very essence it was to
distinguish, to resolve the infinite into a number of finite magnitudes,
could not truthfully and with clear, decisive vision face the infinitely
holy principles of Christian morality. It split up everything into
individual cases and, therefore, treated morality as mere casuistry ;
and as the infinite power of moral and religious inspiration was not
sufficiently regarded, everything was gradually transformed into
cunning calculation as to the manner of acting in individual cases,
which often really meant the best method of disguising our own
egotism from ourselves. Probabilism took an important place in
Jesuit morality, i.e. the maxim that of two possible courses in a
particular case, the one based on the weaker arguments may be
chosen, instead of teaching how to follow the holy sense, the inward
Christian impulse in a free and cheerful spirit .... casuistry is
atomism of Christian morality. . . . This method of treating Chris-
tian morality often had a poisonous effect on the innermost being of
Christian life. Religious depth, stem and holy morality and strict
Church discipline were undermined by it. And as it was charac-
teristic of them to transform the inner being into mere externals
the Jesuits also conceived of the Church as primarily a state . . .
they threatened to excavate, as it were, the whole Church, to rob
it of all power and inward fife. . . . The tendency of Jesuitism
was also unquestionably very dangerous for the Church, and
it was necessary to put a check on its efforts. . . . Although
the suppression of the Jesuit Order was a work of violence and
accompanied by the most crying injustice, it need not be regretted
on historic grounds. The Order belonged to a past age, and in

* Theologia Christiana dogmatico-moralis (Romae, 1749-51), dedication to Pope
Benedict XIV.

294

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

spite of the change of circumstances continued its activity according
to the old fashion. It was, therefore, impossible for it to intervene
beneficially in the newer age.”*

Reinhold Baumstark, for many years leader of the
Baden Catholics in the Second Chamber at Carlsruhe
(who died in 1900), wrote of the influence of Jesuit morality
on the confessional :

“ Jesuitism has transformed the confessor of the Catholic Church,
i.e. the priest, to whom every Catholic must confess his sins at least
once a year before receiving the Easter communion, into the
spiritual director, i.e. that priest who, in the confessional and
outside it, directs and governs the whole conduct of the individual
not only from the point of view of what is permissible or sinful,
but also from that of expediency, prudence and results. . . .
His whole life is gradually surrounded and dominated by it [the
intercourse with the confessor introduced by the Jesuits] ; outward
obedience to law, irreproachable conduct and piety are strongly
in evidence, but that which constitutes the chief, indeed sole worth,
of a man — his free self-direction, inward piety and real moral
personality — is destroyed in this fashion.”f

Leibnitz characterises Jesuit morality in the first
place as : “ Cette morale ridicule de la probabilite et ces
subtilites frivoles inconnues a Vancienne Eglise, et meme
rejettees par les payens Then he continues :

“ On voit en Europe qu’il y a en a souvent entre eux
qui sont pleins de petites -finesses , qui ne seraient pas
approuvees parmy les honnestes gens du grand monde.
Je croy que leurs enseignments diecole et leurs livres de
morale contribuent beaucoup a gaster V esprit des novices et
de leurs jeunes gensE\

* From a lecture dictated by Mohler in 1831, at Tubingen, communicated by
the Lucerne Canon and Theological Professor, J. B. Leu, in Beitrag zur Wiirdigung
des Jesuitenordens (Lucerne, 1840), pp. 23-29.

| Schicksale eines deutschen Katholiken (Strassburg, 1885), 2nd edition, pp. 85
et seq, 147, 148.

+ Rommel, Leibniz und Landgraf Ernst von Hessen-Bhemfels, Ungedruckter
Brief wechsel (Frankfort-a-M., 1847), I., 279, 280.

Jesuit Morality 295

Among the testimonies against Jesuit morality from
within the Order, the first place is due to the General
Thyrsus Gonzalez.

Gonzalez, the thirteenth General of the Order (1687-
1705), for many years waged a heroic war against the
bad morality of his Order as incorporated in probabilism
and its excrescences. The most influential of his subordi-
nates organised revolt upon revolt against him, and strove
by open and secret attacks, calumniation and intrigues,
to make his life and position unbearable, until at last
they drove him out of his mind.*

The story of Thyrsus Gonzalez forms one of the by
no means uncommon sections of the history of the Jesuit
Order, in which, instead of the much- vaunted “ sacred ”
and “ blind ” obedience to the Superiors, brutal dis-
obedience prevails, and the disaffection stirred up
by the Order’s egotism and greed for rule gives
way neither to General nor Pope ; for Gonzalez, too,
acted in agreement with Pope Innocent XI. and under
his orders.

Here, as everywhere, when the dark sides of the
Order’s history are concerned, the official historians of
the Order try to distort and hush up the matter. Thus,
e.g. the Jesuit de Ravignan, who wrote his book De
l' Existence et de VInstitut des Jesuites (Paris, 1855) by
command of the Order, in dealing with the struggle of the
Order with the General and Pope, which was waged with
the utmost virulence, only says :

* The Jesuit Bonucci bears testimony to the fact that Gonzalez was driven
out of his mind by his subordinates. In a confidential letter of September 9,
1719, published by Pietro Bigazzi as an interesting contemporary document
( Miscellanea storica e letteraria , Firenze, 1847), Bonucci writes referring to the
great annoyances to which the successor of Gonzalez, Tamburini, had also been
exposed by his Jesuit subordinates, says : “ He will be the second General in our
time to be driven out of his mind (e questo sara il secondo Generale eke a giorn
nostri avevero fatto impazzire ( cf . Dollinger-Reusch, I., 205). The “ first ” Genera
driven out of his mind “ in our time ” can only refer to Gonzalez.

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

296

“ Many of the Order’s theologians have attacked probabilism ;
the strongest condemnation of the kind known to me is that written
by one of our Generals, Thyrsus Gonzalez. Many other of our
members have approved of probabilism.”*

It is only when we begin to study the historical material
relating to probabilism! that we come to realise how
untruthful are such utterances in consciously suppressing
the truth.

Gonzalez relates that Innocent XI. said to him on the
occasion of his first audience that his (the General’s) task
must be to divert the Society of Jesus from the precipice
(a praecipitio avertere ) into which it seemed about to fall,
by trying to adopt as the doctrine of the Order the laser
view as to the use of probable opinions. “ The Pope also
commissioned him to summon a prominent Spanish Jesuit
to Rome as Professor at the Collegium Romanum, to
teach the stricter morality approved by Gonzalez him-
self.”! And this statement was repeated on oath by
Gonzalez as a witness at the Beatification of Innocent XI. $

As Gonzalez clearly expresses his assent to Innocent’s
declaration, and as, moreover, his whole life and work
were devoted to extirpating the lax morality of his Order,
his testimony bears the crushing weight of the voices of
a “ beatified ” Pope and a General of the Order, whose
office of itself enabled him to know the condition of the
moral teachings of his Order.

The Jesuits, too, must necessarily feel the weight of
their General’s words. On this account they not only

* P. 152.

t DollingeF . and Reusch, in their Moral sir eiiigkeiten, so frequently quoted
supply almost complete material.

} Concina. Difesa, 1, 28 ; Sac. JRituum Conqregatione Em. et Rev. D. Card.
Ferrario, Roman. Beatificationis et Canonizationis Yen. Servi Dei Innocentii Papas
undecimi. Posit io super dubio an sit signanda commissio introductionis causae in
cam (Romae, 1713), p. 180, printed by Dollinger-Reusch, I., 132 (2).

Ibid.

Jesuit Morality 297

keep them as secret as possible, but they do not even
shrink from representing as false the statements made on
oath by their General.

“ They assert that it is certain that the Pope maintained a
purely passive attitude in this matter ; the words placed in his
mouth by Gonzalez could never have been spoken by him.”*

The real reason for the resistance of the Jesuit Order
to a reform of its morality and its obstinate adherence,
in spite of Pope and General, to its lax probabilism, is
worth noting. It is the lust of dominion which, like a
red thread, runs through the whole of Jesuitism and its
history, which here, too, allowed the end to “ sanctify
the means.”

H. Noris, Consultor of the Congregation of the Inquisi-
tion, and afterwards Cardinal, in a letter addressed to
the Grand Duke Cosimo III. of Florence, in 1692, gives
as the view of the Jesuits :

“ The doctrine of their General [Thyrsus Gonzalez] was dangerous
to the efficacy of the Society ; for as they [the Jesuits] were con-
fessors to so many great princes in Europe, so many princely
prelates in Germany, and so many courtiers of high rank, they must
not be so severe as their General desired, because if they wished
to follow his teaching they would lose their posts as confessors
at all the courts.”f

It would be impossible to exceed the severity of the
judgment passed by the Jesuit, Michael de Elizalde. He
was a friend of the Jesuit Cardinal Pallavicini, who calls
him one of the greatest theologians of the Order,] and
was Professor of Theology at Valladolid, Salamanca,

» Ibid., L, 135, and II., 163.

f The interesting letter is printed by Concina, Difesa 2, and Patuzzi, Leiiere 6.
Dollinger-Reusch, I., 176.

J Letter e del Card. Sforza Pallavicini (Rome, 1848), 2, 35 ; 3, 229.

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

298

Rome and Naples. He composed a work on Probabilism
approved by Pallavicini, which, however, failed to attain
the Imprimatur of the Superiors, and he was actually
threatened with the severest penalties by General Paul
Oliva. His work appeared first in a mutilated edition,
but six years later, after his death, was republished in
extenso with the title, De recta doctrina morum (Friburgi,
1684). Elizalde’s polemics are directed against the theo-
logians Diane and Caramuel, but chiefly against his fellow-
Jesuits Escobar, Tamburini and Moya. He summarises
his views on Jesuit morality thus :

“ Recently I looked through a summary of morals in severa
volumes. I sought for Christ, but found Him not. I sought for
the love of God and our neighbour, but found them not. I sought
for the Gospel, but found it not. I sought for humility, but found
it not. But if we read in St. Paul or any other apostle or saint,
we find the very opposite ; everywhere Christ, love, humility,
holiness abound. These two doctrines, therefore, are in no way
connected, and stand in no relation to one another. . . . The
Gospel is simple and opposed to all equivocation ; it knows only
yea, yea ; nay, nay. Modern morality is not simple, but makes
use of that equivocating probabilism, using yea and nay simul-
taneously, since its rule is the probability of mutually contradictory
statements.”*

In a memorial sent to Clement XL, in October, 1706,
the Jesuit Camargo tells of the experiences which he and
others had of Jesuit morality when conducting popular
missions in Spain :

“ How many contradictions, dangers and difficulties I and all
the others experienced who, in the direction of conscience, reject
the common rule of probabilism so universally diffused throughout
Spain, God alone knows, and it sounds incredible. Morals have
grown so lax that in practice scarcely anything is regarded as

* De recta doctrina morum , 1, 8 qu 7, { 2 : Dollinger-Reuseh, I., 150.

Jesuit Morality 299

not permitted. . . . Not only among the people, but also among
confessors, preachers and professors does the opinion prevail, that
we commit no sin, if we believe while acting that we are acting
rightly, or do not think that we are acting wrongly, or are in doubt
about the matter. ... I know not through what mysterious or,
at any rate, terrible decree of God it has come about that this
moral doctrine, which is so hateful to the Apostolic See and so
contrary to Christian morality, has found such favour among the
Jesuits, that they still defend it, while elsewhere it is scarcely
tolerated, and that not a few Jesuits believe themselves bound
to defend it as one of the doctrines of the Order. . . . It is regret-
table that the enemies of the Society can, without untruth, reproach
it as being the only apologist for probabilism, which is the source
of all laxity and corruption of morals, and has been condemned
almost expressly by the Apostolic See, and even promote and
spread it with zeal. 55 *

That the Jesuits Elizalde and Camargo were per-
secuted and grievously calumniated by their fellow-Jesuits
for their candour, f is a matter of course to those who
know Jesuit ways. Cardinal Manning and Abbe de
Ranee also had experience of this peculiarity of the
“ Society of Jesus,” which is doubtless based on the
command of Jesus, “ Love your enemies ... do good
to them that hate you,” as have countless others before
and after them.

The Jesuit Andre complains in a letter:

44 Every day I hear the casuists of our Order maintain that a
king is not bound to abide by a treaty which he has only concluded
in order to bring to an end a war which has turned out to his dis-
advantage. I hold the opposite opinion. I stand almost alone
among a crowd of persons who pretend to be religious. Neither
law nor gospel is binding in matters of State — an abominable
doctrine ! ”%

* Printed in Concina, Difesa, 2, CO : Dollinger-Reusch, I., 265-26G.

t Ibid., I., 56.

} Charma, Le Pere Andre , 2, 358 ; Dollinger-Reusch, I., 104, 105.

300 Fourteen Years a Jesuit

The Jesuit La Quintinye, to whose piety and purity
of morals his General, Paul Oliva, bears testimony, after
vainly directing protests to his superiors, addressed himself
on January 8, 1679, to Innocent XI.

He says that during the last fifteen years he had
repeatedly written to former Popes about the sad con-
ditions that prevailed in the Society of Jesus, to which
he had belonged for more than thirty years ; but he did
not know whether his letters had ever reached the persons
to whom they were addressed. His complaints dealt
with — 1. The moral doctrines prevailing in the Society
of Jesus, which had already been condemned by many
bishops and popes. 2. The practice of the Jesuits in
the direction of souls based on this doctrine. 3. The
means adopted by the Jesuit superiors to compel the
subordinates to adopt their moral doctrines. 4. The
cunning which the Jesuit superiors employed to prevent
the Papal decrees against the lax Jesuit morality from
being made known to the subordinates. They assured
the Pope of their intention to obey, and the Jesuit General
publicly called upon his subordinates to prove their
obedience ; but secretly and in private letters they
admonished them to abide by the lax moral doctrines
condemned by the Popes.*

Two Jesuit voices raised on behalf of Jesuit morality
really bear testimony against it ; but for that very reason
and on account of their boastful tone, they futnish proofs
of special strength.

The Jesuit Le Roux says :

“ Ivenin [an opponent of the Jesuits] thinks it may be deduced
from their teaching that a man who, for forty years, has led a
godless life and then received the sacramental absolution by mere
attrition [penitence from fear of punishment], and immediately
after loses his reason through a fatal illness, has a right to ever-
* Dollinger-Keusch, I., 57-61 and II., 1-19, where the documents are printed.

Jesuit Morality 301

lasting bliss, although he never, not even at the end of his life,
loved God. That we unhesitatingly admit.”*

And in the Imago primi Saeculi it is stated in praise
of Jesuit morality that :

“ Now [in consequence of the activity of the Jesuits] sins are
atoned more speedily and eagerly than they were formerly com-
mitted ; nothing is more common than monthly or even weekly
confession ; most people have scarcely committed a sin before
they confess it.”f

Everything which can be said against Jesuit morality
may be summed up in the fact that several Popes,
especially Alexander VII., Innocent XI., and Alexander
VIII., found themselves compelled to condemn in solemn
manifestoes a number of really monstrous maxims of this
morality, which were actually taken from the works of
some of the leaders in moral theology.

Truly the bodyguard of the Pope took little notice
of the condemnation, but “ proved,” also through its
leaders, that most of the condemned maxims were not
understood by their Jesuit authors in the sense on which
the Papal condemnation was based ; therefore they might
calmly go on teaching them.

For a detailed account of this masterpiece of Jesuit
obedience and Jesuit power of exposition I must refer
to my work on the Papacy.!

FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF JESUIT ETHICS AND
MORALITY

1. Untruthfulness. — I have repeatedly emphasised the
fact that part of the essence of Jesuitism is an all-pervading
untruthfulness. It is a subtle poison, which exercises its

Dollinger-Reusch, I., SO.

t Imago , p. 372.

J U., 444 et seg .

302

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

power to kill truthfulness, faith and loyalty throughout
the whole organism of the Order.

The Order’s system of government, built up on mutual
supervision, secret reports, espionage, denunciation, is op-
posed to all human and Christian simplicity and candour,
and necessarily begets mistrust, suspicion, and at last
conscious and unconscious untruthfulness.

Thus the Constitutions of the Order prepare the ground,
on which the moral theological doctrines as to the per-
missibility of mental restriction, of every kind of equivo-
cation, of half and three-quarter truths, easily take root
and shoot luxuriantly upward. These doctrines are the
flesh and blood of the Jesuit body, and are more
or less the ethical and moral base of the individual
Jesuits.

To what an extent Jesuitism has lost all sense of
truth, is shown in startling fashion just where it appears
to come forward against untruth and lies. Thus the
Jesuit Delrio, Professor of Theology at the Universities
of Salamanca and Graz, writes :

“ It is an article of faith that a lie (which deserves the name)
is in itself something morally bad. Yet consider : it is one thing
to say something false and another to hide something true, by
making use not of a lie but an equivocation. The utterance of a
judge at Liege was both cunning and permissible, who said to a
stiff-necked witch, who denied all accusations, that if she spoke
the truth sufficiently he would, as long as she lived, provide from
his own or public means food and drink for her every day and see to
it that a new house was built for her, understanding by ‘ house ’ the
wooden [scaffolding] with the bundles and straw on which she would
be burnt. Other [permissible equivocations] are cited by Sprenger
[a Dominican] : They should treat the guilty person with greater
honour than is customary, and admit respected persons, whom he
would not suspect, to intercourse with him. These may discourse
about various alien matters, and finally advise him with confidence

Jesuit Morality 303

to confess the truth, promising that the judge would show him
mercy and they would act as intermediaries. The judge should
then come and promise to let mercy prevail, understanding by this,
— for himself or the State, for the preservation of which everything
that is done is an act of mercy. The judge might also say to the
accused that he was giving him good counsel, and a confession
would be of great advantage to him, even in saving his life. For
this is most true, if understood of eternal life, which is the true
life.”*

And this encouragement of infamous lying in trials
when life is hanging in the balance is passed unhesita-
tingly by the censor of the Order, who, moreover, in the
case of Delrio’s work, was one of the most famous Jesuits
of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, Oliverius
Manaraus, who justifies his imprimatur “ by the judgment
of weighty and learned theologians of the Order.” And,
what is more, a Jesuit of the twentieth century, Duhr,
who has become sufficiently well-known to us, praises
his fellow-member of the Order, Delrio —

“ Because he severely attacks the judges, who wish
to make the witches confess by means of false repre-
sentations and lies.”f

Consequently, even to the present day, Jesuitism —
for Duhr’s work, too, passed the Order’s censorship —
does not find any falsehood or inaccuracy in the disgraceful
craftiness and lies of the judge at Liege, and in the counsel
of the Jesuit Delrio.

With such a conception of “ lying,” it is no wonder
that we find the most prominent moral theologians of
the Jesuit Order putting forward preposterous doctrines
with regard to equivocation.

* Disquisitionum magicarum libri sex (Coloniae, 1679), p. 768.

f Die Stellung der Jesuiten in den deutschen Hexenprozessen. V ereinssclirijt der
“ Gorresgesdlschaft zur Pflege der Wissenschaft im katholischen Deutschland **
(Cologne, 1900), p. 44.

304

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

The Jesuit Cardenas says :

“ Sanchez [a Jesuit] mentions two kinds of ambiguities which
he declares to be perfectly admissible. In the first place, if I make
use of words which are in themselves ambiguous and apply them
in one sense whilst the listener believes I am applying them in
another sense. If there is no sufficient reason for concealing the
truth, the use of such ambiguity is unlawful, but not untruthful.
Thus, for example, if some one has killed a Frenchman ( hominem
natione gallum), he can say, without lying, that he has not killed
a 4 gallum ,’ if he takes this word in the sense of 4 cock.’ To this
class must also be referred the ambiguity in the case non est hie,
i.e. according to the way it is understood : he is not here, and he
is not eating here. That Innocent XI. did not condemn this use
of ambiguity is certain. For he only condemns ambiguity con-
nected with mental reservation, which means that something is
added mentally. But in the cases of ambiguity quoted above
nothing is added mentally, because the different significations
(i gallus , est) lie in the words themselves. The second kind of per-
missible ambiguity arises when the words in themselves are not
ambiguous, but assume another meaning owing to the conditions of
place, time and persons. Thus it is related of St. Francis that when
on one occasion robbers, who had passed him, were pursued by the
officers of the law, he replied to their questions as to whether the
former had gone that way by saying 4 They have not come here/
at the same time putting his hands into his sleeves. And this
reply was perfectly truthful, for the robbers had not passed through
his sleeves. He could also have put his foot on a stone and said,
4 They have not gone through here/ because they had not gone
through the stone. There is no mental reservation in this case,
because, through his placing his foot on the stone, the words in
question (‘come through,’ 4 gone through’) related to the stone.
In this class are also included those words which have only one
meaning in themselves, but are ambiguous, without mental reser-
vation, according to the different way in which they are used.
Thus, for example, the word 4 know/ which really signifies certain
knowledge, is also frequently used for defective knowledge. On
the other hand, 4 ignorance ’ means lack of certain knowledge,

Jesuit Morality 305

but is frequently used for the lack of any knowledge. Consequently,
if someone has heard from another person that Peter committed
a theft, and replies on being asked, 6 I do not know/ i.e. { I have no
infallible knowledge of it/ he is not lying. Suare and Lugo [the
chief theologians of the Jesuit Order] also give the following
example : 6 A man who has only a loaf, which is necessary for his
subsistence, answers the person who asks for one truthfully when
he states, ‘ I have none/ for he really has none which he can give,-
and he is asked in this sense. By these different ways of making
use of ambiguity which we have quoted as permissible, all pangs
of conscience and doubt are removed. Thus, an adulterous woman,
when questioned by her husband regarding the adultery and
threatened with death, may reply without falsehood and without
mental reservation, ‘ I have not wounded your honour/ for
6 wounded 5 means a material wounding, which cannot be applied
to honour. She may also deny her adultery by taking this word
in the sense in which it is frequently used in the Scriptures, namely,
as idolatry. Any one who is questioned by the police concerning the
whereabouts of a criminal, can give St. Francis’s reply, which we
have already cited. Whoever is asked by the judge on oath how
much he has of a certain commodity, which is unjustly taxed at
too high a rate, may swear that he has a considerably smaller
quantity of it than he really has, and it can be shown in many
ways that this is no perjury. In the first place, when he swears
that he has, for example, twenty pitchers of oil, he does not deny
that he has more, but speaks the truth, saying that he has twenty
pitchers. Secondly, he may swear that he has not more than
twenty, because he speaks the truth so far as the judge, who only
asks as to the amount of oil which ought to be taxed, is concerned.
As, according to the hypothesis, the tax is unjustly high, it is quite
true to say that the person does not possess more, adding [mentally]
than must be taxed.”*

The Jesuit Lay maun :

“ Ambiguities are not lies. Ambiguities are modes of expression
with a double meaning, one of which, that conveying the truth,

* Crisis theologica . Venetiis (1710), IV., 120 et sey.

U

306 Fourteen Years a Jesuit

the speaker has in view, and hence does not lie, even when the
person addressed interprets the words in the other sense, which
is incorrect, and is thus deceived. For the speaker does not practise
the deceit on the person addressed, but only permits it. . . .
Although it is a probable view that every promissory perjury is a
deadly sin, the opposite view is more probable. . . . Although
an ambiguous oath is no perjury when there is just cause for
concealing the truth, and is even exempt from all moral wrong,
it is to some extent a false oath and not permissible when there is
not just cause. Three assertions are implied by this thesis : —
1. An ambiguous oath is no perjury, because one sense of the
ambiguous expression is correct, according to the hypothesis ;
consequently, whoever confirms this sense with an oath does not
commit perjury. Indeed, when an expression is really not ambiguous,
but when it has in itself or in the circumstances only one meaning
and that the false one, no perjury is committed when the person
under oath does not intend to emphasise this false sense, but
another, which does not correspond with the words sworn by him.
An oath is only false when God is called upon as a witness for some-
thing false ; but he who swears in the above-mentioned manner
does not call upon God on behalf of the false sense which he refers
to outwardly, but on behalf of the truth which he retains inwardly.”

Laymann admits, it is true, that he who swears thus
utters a lie and usually commits a grievous sin. He then
continues :

“ 2. That an ambiguous oath is no sin, can be proved in the
same way. For one interpretation of the ambiguous expression is
true, and it can consequently, if necessary, be confirmed with an
oath. ... It follows from clause 2 that he who has returned a
loan may swear before a court of justice, if he has no other proof,
that he has never entered into any agreement for a loan, adding to
himself, such that he should have to return the loan twice. Covar-
ruvias, Aaor and Suarea declare this view as probable. He who
has been induced under severe threats, or without the inner wish,
to bind himself, and has said to a woman, ‘ I will marry you,’ may,
when asked by the judge about the matter, deny on oath that he

Jesuit Morality 307

has spoken such words, understanding the oath to mean that he
has voluntarily agreed to marry her. He who is asked under oath
if he has come from a place which is falsely supposed to be infected
with the plague, may swear that he has not come thence, saying
to himself, ‘ from the plague-infected place.’ ”*

The Jesuits Ballerini and Palmieri : —

“ The general teaching of the theologians is that for a just
cause ambiguity and equivocation are permissible even when under
oath. And, in fact, when ambiguity is used, that which is mani-
fested outwardly corresponds with the inner meaning of the person
under oath, and hence the truth necessary for the oath is present .
The listener is deceived, it is true, but we only admit that he mis-
leads himself. A person is permitted to swear falsely aloud when
an addition is spoken softly, provided that it is evident that an
addition has been made, although the meaning of the addition i3
not understood.”*!*

The Jesuit Lehmkuhl, whose Moral Theology is taken
as the basis of instruction for the confessors designate
in numerous seminaries for Eoman Catholic priests in
Germany, France, Italy, Holland, and elsewhere, says :

“ Lying is always sinful. . . . But mental reservation is
frequently free from falsehood ; consequently [sic /] it is occasionally
permissible and necessary and occasionally not permissible to make
use of it. Under mental reservation is understood the keeping
back of the sense of the words or its mental definition. This may
occur in different ways : — 1. If the words themselves have different
meanings according to their interpretation, so that the speaker
must give them a particular meaning. 2. If the words have not
a double meaning in themselves, but may be taken in a sense different
from the obvious one through conditions of place, person and time.
For example, the expression, c I do not know,’ may admit the

* Theologia moralis . Liber quartus , trad . 3, cp. 14. Edit. Monach ., 1625,
II., 165, 174, 176, 177.

f Opus theolog. morale , Prati, 1892, II., 415, 418.

3°8 Fourteen Years a Jesuit

meaning in certain circumstances, ‘ I do not know so that I can
communicate it.’ 2. If the words can neither have such a meaning
in themselves nor through special conditions, but can only have
another signification through mental addition ; for example, if
anybody, on being asked whether he has been in Cologne, replies,

‘ I was there, 5 and says to himself, ‘ in spirit. 5 The last manner of
speaking, which only consists of mental reservation, is never per-
missible, but is untruthful. The two other ways are permissible
in suitable circumstances, for in whatever way the words are spoken
— and they must be considered along with the circumstances — they
express the real meaning which the speaker mentally intended,
even though not clearly and definitely. The speaker intends,
however, that the full meaning shall not be understood by the
person addressed, and herein he is justified, and it is admitted that
they may perhaps even be wrongly understood. Consequently, a
part of the truth is concealed, which, for just reasons, may and
must frequently occur. ... As often as I use in permissible
fashion any reservation not exclusively mental, I may, according
to the importance of the occasion, swear even with this reserva-
tion. 55 * r _ .

Lehmkuhrs instructive remarks regarding calumnia-
tion also belong here. On the authority of Liguori and
the Jesuit Busenbaum, he declares that it is a deadly
sin —

“ To call a priest or a pious member of an Order a liar, whilst
it is a pardonable sin to accuse a soldier, who lives a freer life, of
philandering or vendetta. Nor is it very sinful to relate similar or
analogous offences of one who is already notorious in other respects ;
for example, to say of one who is known as a drunkard that he
quarrels with his wife, or of a robber that he has committed perjury.
. . . Who would consider it a serious calumny to say that an
atheist is considered capable of secretly committing any crime
(quaelibet crimina) ?

* Thcologia moralis. Edit. 6. 1890, I., n., 772, 773.

t Ibid., n. 1178, 1179,

Jesuit Morality 309

f The Jesuit Gury :

“ Anna had committed adultery ; she replied first of all to her
husband, who was suspicious and questioned her, that she had not
broken the marriage bond ; the second time, she replied, after she
had been absolved from the sin, c I am not guilty of such a crime 5 ;
finally, the third time, because her husband pressed her still further,
she flatly denied the adultery, and said, ‘ I have not committed
it,’ because she understood by this, ‘ such adultery as I should be
obliged to reveal,’ or ‘ I have not committed adultery which is to
be revealed to you. 5 Is Anna to be condemned ? Anna can be
justified from falsehood in the threefold case which has been men-
tioned. For, in the first case, she could say that she had not broken
the marriage bond, because it was still in existence. In the second
case, she could say that she was innocent of adultery, since her
conscience was no longer burdened with it after confession and
the receiving of absolution, because she had the moral certainty
that this had been forgiven; Indeed, she could make this assertion
on oath, according to the general opinion and that of Liguori,
Lessius, the Salmanticenses, and Suarea. In the third case, she
could, in the probable view, still deny having committed adultery
in the sense that she was obliged to reveal it to the husband. 5 ’*

Such theories have been practically utilised in the
Jesuit Order from early times. Some historical occur-
rences which have become famous will serve as
examples.

The Jesuit Garnet, Provincial of the English
Province of the Order, made use of equivocation, as he
himself writes in a letter “ to the Fathers and Brethren
of the Society, 55 so as not to be convicted of participa-
tion in the Gunpowder Plot in the examination before
the Commissioners, f Garnet says, in a letter dated
March 20th, 1606 :

* Casus conscientiae , I., 182 ei scq . (parisiis, 1892), 8th edit on.
f Text of the letter in Jardine : A Narrative of the Gunpowder Plot (London
1857), p. 203 (1).

3io

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

“ In cases where it becomes necessary to an individual for his
defence, or for avoiding any injury or loss, or for obtaining any
important advantage, without danger or mischief to any other
person, there equivocation is lawful.- Let us suppose that I have
lately left London, where the plague is raging, and on arriving at
Coventry, I am asked before I can be admitted into the town
whether I come from London, and am perhaps required to swear
that I do not : it would be lawful for me (being assured that I
bring no infection) to swear in such a case that I did not come
from London ; for I put the case that it would be very important
for me to go into Coventry, and that from my admittance no loss
or damage could arise to the inhabitants.”*

Garnet acknowledged in a letter to his accomplice, the
Jesuit Greenway, that he knew of the Gunpowder Con-
spiracy from the conspirator Catesby’s confession, and
that he was obliged to impart his information (he made
this confession to the court of justice in a “ declaration ”
written in his own hand). The letter was intercepted,
and the Commissioners questioned him as to the existence
and contents of the letter. Garnet replied, “ upon his
priesthood that he did never write any letter or letters,
nor send any message to Greenway since he was at
Coughton ; and this he protested to be spoken without
equivocation.” A few days afterwards, on being shown
his letter to Green way, and asked how he could justify
his falsehood, he boldly replied, “ that he had done nothing
but that he might lawfully do, and that it was evil done
of the Lords to ask that question of him, and to urge
him upon his priesthood when they had his letters which
he had written, for he never would have denied them if
he had seen them ; but supposing the Lords had not his
letters, he did deny in such sort as he did the writing of
any letter, which he might lawfully do.”f

Jardine, the keen-witted investigator of these cir-

* Jardine, Ibid., p. 233 et seq . f Jardine, Ibid., p. 244 et seq.

Jesuit Morality 311

cumstances, criticises, on the strength of the still extant
minutes, the Jesuit Garnet’s attitude before the tribunal :

44 He had denied all knowledge of the Plot until betrayed by
the conferences with [the Jesuit] Hall, and he denied those con-
ferences until he plainly perceived that he only injured himself
by so doing ; and when afterwards abashed and confounded at
the clear discovery of his falsehood, he admitted to the Lords that
c he had sinned unless equivocation could save him 5 ! From the
beginning to the end of the inquiry, he had acted in strict con-
sistency with the principles he now acknowledged, never confessing
any fact until it was proved against him, and never hesitating
to declare palpable falsehoods respecting matters which tended
to inculpate himself and affirm them by the most solemn oaths
and protestations.’ 5 *

And this is the man of whom Professor Buchberger,
the editor of the Kirchliches Handlexikon ,f which was
episcopally approved, writes : “ Garnet was a man

incomparable in knowledge and saintliness.” This is
another proof of the great extent to which the official
Roman Church adapted itself to the morals of the Jesuits.

The Jesuit Gerard relates :

44 They [the Commissioners] asked me then whether I acknow-
ledged the Queen [Elizabeth] as the true governor and Queen of
England. I answered, 4 I do acknowledge her as such. 5 4 What 1 5
said TopcliSe, 4 in spite of Pius V.’s excommunication ? ’ I
answered, 4 1 acknowledge her as our Queen, notwithstanding I
know there is such an excommunication/ The fact was [the
Jesuit continues] 4 1 knew that the operation of that excommuni-
cation had been suspended in all England by a declaration of the
Pontiff till such time as its execution became possible.”!

The Catholic theologian, Taunton, rightly remarks on

* Jardine, lbid. t p. 237. t Munich, 1907, I., 1594.

J The Life of Fr. John Gerard (London, 1882), p. 225.

3i2 Fourteen Years a Jesuit

this cynical and naive utterance : “It shows what reliance
can be put upon some of the protestations of allegiance.”*

The shameless inaccuracy of the Jesuit’s reply reflects,
of course, more on the Papacy than on Jesuit morality.
For Gregory XIII., a special friend of the Jesuits, had
indeed authentically interpreted the Bull of deposition
of his predecessor, Pius V., in the manner indicated by
Gerard, and had entrusted the “ interpretation ” in an
audience of April 14th, 1580, to the Jesuits Parsons and
Campian, who were journeying to England.!

The Jesuit, Robert Southwell, directed the daughter of
his host, in whose house he lay concealed from the sheriff’s
officers of Queen Elizabeth of England, that she should
reply “ No,” to the question as to whether Robert South-
well were in her father’s house, and confirm the reply
with an oath. In order to make the “ No ” correct, she
was to think, “He is not in my father’s house so that
I am bound to tell them.”!

The attitude of the Parisian Jesuits with regard to a
book by their fellow- Jesuit, Santarelli, Tractatus de haeresi,
etc., affords a specially striking example of the ability of
the Jesuits to say “Yes” and “No” about the same
circumstance. This book, which was published in 1625,
with the approval of the General, Vitelleschi, taught the
usual doctrine of the Order regarding the Pope’s supremacy
over kings and princes, and defended the view that the
Bull, TJnam sanctam, which dogmatically established this
doctrine, was not suspended by Clement Y.’s Brief, Meruit,
published in favour of France. The Parisian Sorbonne
condemned the book. On March 14th, 1626, the French
Parliament cited the Provincial of the Jesuits at Paris

* The Jesuits in England, p. 165.

■f The Jesuits' Memorial, p. XXVI., and Earleian Miscellany , 4th edition,
II., 130.

} Taunton, p. 168.

Jesuit Morality 313

and six other Fathers to appear before the bar so as to
question them about the book. I quote from the minutes
of the case :

44 4 Do you approve of Santarelli’s bad book ? 5 4 On the con-

trary, we are ready to write against it and contest all that he says . 5
4 Do you not know that this wicked doctrine has been approved
by your General in Rome ? 5 4 Yes, but we here cannot help this

indiscretion, and we blame it most emphatically . 5 4 Do you believe
that the Pope may excommunicate and depose the King, and release
his subjects from their oath of allegiance ? 5 4 How should the

Pope excommunicate the King, the eldest son of the Church, who
would certainly do nothing which would render it necessary ? 5
4 But your General, who has approved the book, considers that its
contents are correct ,* do you differ in opinion ? 5 4 The General,

who lives in Rome, can do nothing but approve that which the
Roman Curia has sanctioned . 5 4 And your own conviction ? 5
4 Is quite different . 5 4 And what would you do if you were in
Rome ? 5 4 We should act in the same manner as those who are
there . 5 ”*

Louis XIV. ’s confessor, the Jesuit La Chaise, writes
to the Jesuit Petre, the political favourite of James IL
of England, in a letter dated March 7th, 1688 :

44 One of your Assisting Fathers of that Kingdom (which was
Father Parsons) having written a book against the succession of
the King of Scots, to the Realm of England , Father Creighton , who
was also of our Society, and upheld by many of our Party, defended
the Cause of that King, in a Book intituled, The Reasons of the
King of Scots, against the Book of Father Parsons ; and tho 5 they
seemed divided, yet they understood one another very well, thus
being practised by Order of our General, to the End, that if the
House of Scotland were excluded, they might shew him, who had
the Government, the book of Father Parsons ; and on the other
Hand, if the King happened to be restored to the Throne, they

* Reusch, Der Index , IL, 351, 352.

314

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

might obtain his Good Will, by shewing him the Works of Father
Creighton : So that which Way soever the Medal turn’d, it still
prov’d to the Advantage of our Society.”*

Whether the letter is genuine in this form is uncertain.
But we are certain of the existence of the two mutually
contradictory works by the Jesuits Parsons and Creighton
mentioned in it,f and in this fact lies the proof of the
equivocation of the Order which is expressed in a typical
manner in this letter. And this is the point. The letter —
in case it is not genuine — would then be, like the Monita
secreta, a sharply pointed, satirical exposure of Jesuit
double dealing.

On December 24th, 1613, the Jesuit Adam Contzen,
Professor of Theology at Mayence, suggested in a letter
to the Jesuit Cardinal, Bellarmin, that a Supplicatio to
the King of England, or to the Dutch States-General,
should be written in the name of a Protestant preacher,
showing the necessity for a Calvinistic council, in order
to divert attention from a letter directed against Pope
Paul V. (demonstrating that the choice of the Pope was
simoniacal, consequently invalid) .J

The Jesuit, Hugo Roth, also pretended that he was a
Dutch Calvinist in his anonymous work, Cavea turturi
structa, published in 1631, against the Dominican Jacob
Gravina. In a letter addressed to the Jesuit Forer he
says it would not be well that he (Roth) should be known
to be the author, because it would lead to a popular scandal
if it were known that members of the Orders attacked
one another. §

* Collection of Papers Relating to the Present Juncture of Affairs in England.
Third Collection, p. 27. London, 1689.

j* Sommervogel, S.J., Bibliotheque de la Compagnie de Jesus (Bruxelles -Paris,
1895-1900), 6, 303 ; 9 (Supplement), 148.

+ Dollinger-Reusch, Morcdstreitigkeiten , I., 550, and II., 262.

§ Ibid., I., 584 ; II., 309.

Jesuit Morality 315

Specially characteristic of the Jesuits was their attempt,
towards the end of the sixteenth century, known as “ The
Douai Knavery ” (la fourberie de Douai), to destroy the
Catholic Theological University at Douai, which dis-
pleased them because it had a tendency towards Jansenism.

A professor at Douai, P. de Ligny, became implicated
in a secret correspondence. The writer of the letters,
who pretended to be the Jansenist leader, Antoine Arnauld
(he always signed himself as Antoine A. and had the
answers sent to Brussels, which was then Arnauld’s place
of residence), severely attacked the Jesuits, and warmly
took up the cause of the Jansenists. The aim of the
correspondence was to unmask Ligny and the other pro-
fessors as Jansenists. The object desired was achieved
and Louis XIY. deprived the Professors Laleu, Rivette,
Ligny and Malpaix of their office, and banished them to
different parts of France. The cunning correspondent,
“ who had rendered such a signal service to religion,” was
not, however, Antoine Arnauld, but a Jesuit, probably
the Jesuit Lallemand who, as Sainte-Beuve* reports,
when an old man, still boasted “ avec jubilation, qu’il
avait imagine, file et conduit a la fin, qu’il se proposait,
la fameuse fourberie de Douai.”

The “ Fourberie de Douai ” created great commotion.
All respectable people were unanimous in its condemnation.
Leibnitz pronounced upon it, saying :

“ The deceit in the Douai case is very wicked and a very bad
example. In legal parlance it may be designated as stellionatus
(artful deception). But, in spite of everything, I do not believe
that the Jesuits will gain much by it ; for if, as seems probable,
the matter is taken up further in the courts of law, the handwritings
will be compared, and it will easily be seen that the handwriting
is not that of Arnauld, and the Jesuits of Douai will be forced to
say how they obtained the documents. Besides, the intrigue bears

* Port Royal, 5, 464 . .

316

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

several marks of falsehood, so that I cannot see the use of such a
cunningly contrived piece of roguery, except to cause alarm among
the ignorant. ... I do not believe that these controversies [the
affair at Douai] can be laid to the charge of the Roman Catholic
religion ; the fadings of human nature are only too well known,
and the Jesuits have given too many proofs of their vindictive
character to be considered exempt from human passions. Doubtless
their general superiors ought to express their strong disapproval
of those who have carried out the affair at Douai, which was a very
dishonourable business (chose forte mcdhonneste) . . . But it seems
that two considerations restrain the Superiors (although they must
be exceedingly displeased, as I readily believe). In the first place,-
they think that their punishment would damage the reputation
of the Society [of Jesus] ; secondly, they have such a bad opinion
of the so-called Jansenists that they rejoice over the matter as a
service rendered to the Church, although they do not approve of
all the circumstances. [Leibnitz thus clearly reproaches the Jesuits
with their observance of the principle ‘ The end sanctifies the
means. 5 ] If I were in place of these Superiors, I would make
amends to Arnauld.”*

The Jesuits themselves, however, thought very differ-
ently on the subject of “ making amends,” as the above-
mentioned remark of the chief culprit, the Jesuit Lalle-
mand, shows.

Arnauld himself tried to obtain the “ amends 55 by
publishing several “complaints” against the Jesuits. It
is stated in one of these :

“ I appeal to you, my right reverend Fathers. ... It only
remains for me to cite you before the tribunal of all honest people
in the world, who are already so indignant about the rascality of
the false Arnauld, so that if nothing else can avail to shame you
the fear of public infamy may, at any rate, compel you to change

* Letters, dated September 12th and October 9th, 1691, to Landgraf Ernst
von Hessen-Rheinfels : Rommel, Leibniz and Landgraf Ernst von Hessen- Bheinfds
(Frankfort, 1847), II., pp. 306 and 326.

Jesuit Morality 317

your attitude. . . . There is only one way for you to save the
honour of your Society, show honour to God, and acknowledge
that all those of your Society who have taken part in' this wretched
intrigue have acted very badly.”*

The Jesuits also tried by a cunning trick to disarm
the Dominican Concina, one of the keenest opponents of
their moral teachings. Such a trustworthy witness as
the Jesuit Cordara gives an account of this :

“ Whilst the struggle against the Jesuits raged thus [chiefly
stirred up by Concina], a violent work suddenly appeared from a
secret place of publication with the title Co?icina , s Recantation, in
which Concina, repenting of his misdeeds, withdrew his accusations
against the Jesuits, accused himself of wicked malignity, and
unmercifully reproached himself with many infamous actions.
Nobody doubted but that a Jesuit was the author of the pamphlet,
which was immediately circulated through the whole city [Rome]
and was eagerly read on account of its satirical wit.”f

Is it surprising that this false and treacherous spirit
which pervades the manuals of moral theology and the
“ glorious ” history of the Order should also make its
way into the daily life of the Jesuit ? Ever since my
suspicions were aroused, in the second year of my novitiate,
regarding the Order’s secrecy, concealment and avoidance of
the light, they never ceased to disturb me ; and numerous
experiences proved to me that, in the Society of Jesus,
Christ’s saying, “ Let your communication be Yea, yea ;
Nay, nay,” is not observed, but that the words of the
genuine Jesuit are full of secondary meanings and reser-
vations. My mistrust of the uprightness of their words
and deeds became insurmountably strong as time passed,

* Seconde Plainle de M. Arnauld aux R. R. P. P. Jesuites, from Arnauld,
31, 453 it seq. ; for the evidence concerning the " falae Arnauld 99 cf. Reusch,
Beitrage zur Ge3chickte des Je3uitenordens (Munich, 1894), pp. 169-195.

t Denkmurdigkeiten, Dollinger, Beitrage , 3, 10,

3i8 Fourteen Years a Jesuit

especially in the case of five influential Jesuits who
were my Superiors — Mes elder, Nix, Ratgeb, Hovel
and Piitz.

Words cannot express what a subordinate, especially
one who is so absolutely dependent as a subordinate in
the Jesuit Order, suffers in an atmosphere of falsehood,
which surrounds him and emanates from his superiors.
And this suffering was not felt by myself alone. Others,
too, were oppressed by its weight. Only very rarely,
and then but casually, did one of us dare to speak
to another of his feelings. For both alike have the right
and the duty to report everything they hear to the Superior.
In the Jesuit Order, there are no friends to whom we can
confide cares and mental anguish without fear of betrayal.
The Constitutions of the Order have made breach of
confidence a law. And yet I once heard a complaint of
the untruthfulness which pervaded the Order made in a
most afEecting manner by a fellow-Jesuit, a dying one,
it is true, who had nothing more to hope for and nothing
to lose.

In 1889 or 1890, the Jesuit Niemoller died at Exaeten
of consumption. I frequently visited him, and he spoke
to me confidentially. Once he said to me in a hoarse,
rattling voice : “ Do you know what has been the hardest
thing in the Order, what has caused me the severest
spiritual tortures ? The feeling of being surrounded by
a system which is full of reservation. But we must
believe that our judgment is mistaken,” he added hastily,
“ for the Church has certainly approved the Jesuit Order
with its theory and practice.” I did not reply to the
poor man, because the authority of the Church, to which
he could still cling, had already begun to totter in my
estimation. For years this “ authority ” had also pre-
vented my condemnation of Jesuit untruthfulness.

One afternoon — it must have been in 1887 or 1888 —

Jesuit Morality 319

I was in the library at Exaeten. A report had spread
amongst us that the neighbouring estate of Oosen, which
is situated on the Maas, had been bought by the German
Province of the Order as a place for recreation. Whilst
I was there, the Socius of the Provincial Superior,
the Jesuit Piitz, entered. No one could give more positive
information, so I asked him if this report was founded
on truth, i.e. whether the estate had been bought, or
would be bought. He replied without hesitation, “ No,
what are you thinking of ? ” On the following day, it
was announced that Oosen had been bought, and the
purchase was actually legally concluded in the morning
of the day, on the afternoon of which the Jesuit Piitz,
who knew exactly the fact of the purchase, had so definitely
denied it.

I have already mentioned the mental reservation which
the Jesuit, Cardinal Franzelin, advised me to employ on
taking the official oath when I entered the Prussian State
service, and how deceitfully the Jesuit Superior at Blyen-
beck (unfortunately I also had a share in this) kept a
“ magister meal ” secret from my uncle, Baron Felix
von Loe.

All these are small passages from daily life — I could
easily multiply them — which, owing to their insignificance
and frequency, show especially clearly the extent to
which untruthfulness has become incorporated in the flesh
and blood of the Jesuit. He no longer feels that re-
strictions, reservations, and the like are dishonourable,
and that they offend against faith and honesty. The
“ classic moral theologians ” of his Order teach that they
are permissible ; members of the Order, to whose “ virtue ”
and “ saintliness ” the history of the Order calls special
attention, practise “ knaveries ” and make use of mental
reservations ; why then should such teachings and
examples not be followed in daily life ?

320 Fourteen Years a Jesuit

2. The End Sanctifies the Means. — I may be

mistaken, but in my view it is here we find the deepest
shadows over Jesuit morality.

The oft-quoted maxim, “ The end sanctifies the means,”
does not occur in this abrupt form in the moral and
theological manuals of the Order. But its signification,
i.e. that means in themselves bad and blameable are
“ sanctified,” i.e. are permissible on account of the good
ends which it is hoped to attain through them, is one of
the fundamental doctrines of Jesuit morals and ethics.

It is well known that many violent disputes have raged
about this maxim. The Jesuit Roh offered a reward oi
1,000 florins to anyone who could point it out in the
moral and theological writings of the Order. The matter
was not decided. In April, 1903, the Centre deputy,
Chaplain Dasbach, repeated Roll’s challenge at a public
meeting at Rixdorf, increasing the sum to 2,000 florins.
I took Herr Dasbach at his word, published the proofs
from Jesuit writings, which appeared to me convinc-
ing, in the magazine Deutschland,* edited by myself, and
called on the challenger, Herr Dasbach, to pay the 2,000
florins. He refused. I sued him for payment at the
County Court at Treves (Dasbach’s place of residence).
The court pronounced that the matter was a betting
transaction, and that the money could not be recovered
at law. On appealing against this to the High Court of
Appeal at Cologne, my case was dismissed on March 30th,
1905, on the ground that the passages brought forward
from Jesuit authors did not contain the sentence, “ The
end sanctifies the means,” either formally or materially.
My counsel advised against applying for a revision at the
Supreme Court of the Empire, as the facts of the case
would not be discussed there, only technical errors in the
previous judgments.

* July, 1903.

Jesuit Morality 321

I have given the main points of the Cologne judgment
in the Zeitschrift fiir Kirchengeschichte* with my comments,
and there also expressed the well-founded supposition
that in essential points it was composed with the assistance
of Jesuit theologians. But even this judgment contains
the sentence, “ Whatever we may think of the morality
manifested in these cases / 5 etc.

All the proceedings, with the quotations (Latin and
German) from the writings of the leading moral theo-
logians of the Jesuit Order, have been given in detail
in my work, Der Zweck heiligt die Mittel, an ethical his-
torical examination, together with an Epilogus galeatus ,f
to which I refer the reader.

I will only submit a few passages here : —

The Jesuit Becanus says :

44 Is it an offence if a person advises another to do the lesser
evil so that he may abstain from the greater ? Or, as others put
the question, is it permissible to advise the lesser evil so as to
prevent the greater ? In particular, may I advise Peter, who wishes
to commit adultery, to commit a simple sin of unchastity, so that
the adultery may be prevented ? Likewise, may I advise a man
who wishes to steal the whole treasure to be satisfied with a part ?
Some believe that it is not permissible, for we must not do evil
that good may come, as the Apostle says in the Epistle to the
Romans, iii. 8, or, which is the same, 4 It is not permissible to make
use of a bad means so as to attain a good end 5 ; thus it is not
permissible to steal money so as to give alms from it ; it is not
permissible to lie so as to convert some one to the Catholic Faith.
Others are of the opposite opinion, as Dominicus Soto, Sylvester
(Prierias), Navarrus, Adrianus, and Johannes Medina en Vasquez
... To this is added a proof based on reason : It is permissible
to advise Peter, who is determined to sin, to commit a more trivial
sin without designating the object of the lesser sin. And yet the
result of this advice is that, while he was previously determined
* Vol. 27, p. 339 ei szq.

f Third Edition (Berlin, 1904), C. A. Schwetschke und Solin.

322

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

to commit adultery, tie is now advised rather to commit a simple
act of unchastity. This latter point of view must be thus under-
stood : If I saw Peter disposed and absolutely determined to
commit adultery so as to satisfy his desires, and I was not able
to dissuade him from his design in any other way than by advising
him to commit a simple act of unchastity in place of the adultery,
it would be permissible to advise the latter, not inasmuch as it is
a sin, but inasmuch as it prevents the crime of adultery, which
would otherwise have been committed. Augustinus also speaks in
this sense when he says that both murder and adultery are sins,
but, for all that, if a man be determined to commit one of the
two, he should rather choose adultery than murder. I say the
same of the thief or robber, who is determined to steal from Peter
his whole stock of gold articles. For, if I cannot prevail on him
in any other way than by the advice to be satisfied with half,
it is permissible to advise him to commit the lesser theft so that he
may abandon the greater. The reason is that he who advises
thus does not injure Peter, but rather renders him a benefit ; he
contrives so that Peter retains half his possessions, which he would
otherwise have lost entirely.”*

The Jesuit Castropalao says :

“ Does a man commit a sinful offence if he offers another an
occasion for sin or does not remove the occasion offered although
he could do so ? If you do not remove the opportunity for sin,
with the intention that the other should sin, it is clear that you
yourself sin on account of the evil intention. It remains doubtful
whether you are excused from the sin, if you were prompted by
some good purpose. The motive may be either that the person
in question may be caught committing the sin and punished, or that
he may be reformed, or that you secure yourself from harm. If
you act from any of the above reasons, you do not apparently
approve the sin of the other person, but permit it. But as to this
we must say that if you merely permit the sin of the other so that
he may be detected and punished, then you yourself sin, for there
does not seem sufficient reason to justify such a permission. The
* Opera omnia. Mogunt. 1649, Partis secundae tract , 1, c. 27, qu. 4, p. 396 et ecq.

Jesuit Morality 323

punishment is not a worthy aim in itself, because it can only be
imposed when the sin has been committed ; indeed, if you, before
the sin has been committed, desire the punishment for the sin,
it implies a silent consent to the sin itself. This is the opinion
expressed by Medina . . . Sanchez . . . and Bonacina. They
say, for instance, that guards by concealing themselves so as to
extort a very heavy fine from travellers who have unlawfully passed
the frontier are guilty of a deadly sin, which is very hard. But if
you permit another to sin so that he may be detected and reformed,
it is allowable, and it follows from what we have said when treating
of admonition on the sixth point ; for the reform of the sinner,
which is confidently expected, seems to be sufficient reason for
permitting the commission of the sin. Besides the above-named
theologians, this doctrine is held by Navarrus . . ., Navarra . .
Valentia . . ., and Sanchez, who again cites Bonacina . .
Molina . . . and Joh. Sanchez. . . . But the prospect of reform
must be almost certain, for only then can the hope of permanent
and radical improvement make up for the permission of the pro-
spective sin. In the second place, I say that you may permit a
sin so as to make your position secure. For these reasons, a married
man, when he suspects his wife of adultery, or is secretly aware
of it, may take witnesses with him so that he may prove the adultery
and may bring about the divorce. As the husband suffers the
greatest injury through the wife’s adultery when he is forced to
live with her, he may, to avert this wrong, and as no other practic-
able way of doing so is presented, except permitting the sin and
confirming it by witnesses, permit it and call in witnesses. Navarra,
Sanchez, Bonacina and Molina hold this view. The difficulty
arises, is it permissible, for the purpose named, to offer the sinners
the opportunity for the sin ? A common opinion negatives the
permissibility, for this does not only entail permitting a sin, but
co-operating in its perpetration, and Emmanuel Sa. . ., Sanchez
. . . and Bonacina hold this view. Hence, as Bonacina and
Sanchez reason, the husband is not allowed to come to terms with
his wife that she may make an appointment with her lover, who
seeks to violate her chastity, fixing time and place, not in order
that the adultery may be committed, but in order that the latter
may be caught in his wicked design. For such an agreement is

324

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

a tacit, indeed, an express consent to the proposed adultery, which
is not permissible. Peter Navarra considers it permissible, however,
though only in rare cases, to offer sinners an occasion for sin. It may
be said as a proof of this : In the first place, an occasion for sin
may be presented by a passive medium. This, for example, is the
case when the father, who wishes to catch the son who is stealing,
leaves the key in the money chest as if through forgetfulness, or
places coins in a place where the son can easily take them and
then be convicted of the theft ; then, I say, the father performs
an indifferent action. Sanchez and others hold the same opinion
in this case. In the same way a woman does not seem to sin when
she, in presence of a seducer from whose importunity she cannot
defend herself, uses an ambiguous expression which the seducer
takes as consent, but which is in reality no consent on her part.
When she says, for instance, to the seducer : 6 1 agree, if you come
at this time and hour, the door will be open,’ the expressions are
indifferent, and although they are considered by the seducer as
a consent to the adultery, this is not the case. Consequently, it
is allowable for her to express herself in this way, because she has
a sufficient reason for the equivocation. Granted, moreover, that
the expression might appear to the seducer as a consent to the
adultery under given circumstances, yet it is no consent when the
matter is well considered ; for such an expression is frequently
used, not in order that the adultery may be committed, but so
that he who secretly designs it may be punished. The woman
does not say, c I agree to your carrying out your wicked design,’
but only, ‘ I agree to your coming to-night. 5 These words may not
only denote that he should come for adultery, but just as well that
he should only come to receive his punishment, so that she may
rid herself of his attentions and defend her honour. . . . Does
a man commit a sinful offence who advises a person about to commit
a serious sin to commit a less serious one ? . . . It is certainly
permissible to suggest a smaller offence to some one who is quite
determined to perpetrate a serious one, so that he may be prevented
from committing the greater. For example, you may urge one
who wishes to commit sodomy to commit a simple unchaste act ;
and you may point out to one who wishes to commit a murder and
then to steal, how to obtain money through usury ; for by this

Jesuit Morality 325

indication you do not directly tempt the person either to unchastity
or to usury, you only point out the way in which the greater sin may
be avoided, and although the way is morally wrong, you do not
induce the other to follow it, but you only say that this is the way
to avoid the greater sin, which is true. This is the view of Covar-
ruvias, Cajetan, Valentia, Sanchez, Lessius and other theologians
to be mentioned later. The difficulty, therefore, begins when the
question is whether it is permissible expressly to advise anyone
who is determined to commit a grievous sin and persuade him
to commit the lesser sin, when he cannot be restrained in any other
manner. The first opinion teaches that it is permissible in this
case, for you do not persuade the other absolutely to commit the
lesser sin, but only on the hypothesis that he wishes to commit the
more serious sin. In case he wishes to commit the more serious
sin, however, it is right to persuade him to be satisfied with com-
mitting the lesser sin, for by this his own cause and God’s are fitly
protected. Consequently you do not sin. This is what is taught
by Sanchez, who cites others besides, Lessius . . . , Rebellus . . . ,
Molina . . ., Bonacina . . ., and Vasquez. . . . The second
view teaches that it is in no case permissible to recommend the
lesser sin to him who wishes to commit the greater. For the recom-
mendation of the lesser sin is still a counsel to sin : a comparative
presupposes a positive. But to advise something which is unlawful
is not permissible. Moreover, free choice of the lesser sin is never
permissible, even when it is made by one who is ever so determined
to commit the greater sin. Consequently the advice to do this is
never permissible. Advice to do something which is in itself not
allowable can never be permitted. This is the view of the theo-
logians Cajetan, Covarruvias, Sylvester, Emanuel Sa, Valentia and
Conrad Summenhart. In this matter, I believe that the first point
of view is correct if he who is advised to commit the lesser sin and
persuaded to do so is already prepared not only to commit the
greater sin, but also the lesser. For then we do not advise the
commission of the lesser evil, but the omission of the greater ;
also, we do not determine the sinner to commit the lesser sin, but
rather deter him from the perpetration of the greater. This is
clear from the following example : Peter is determined to kill
Francis in order to rob him ; he wishes to commit the murder,

.326 Fourteen Years a Jesuit

and you persuade him to be satisfied with wounding. In giving
this advice you wrong no one : you do not injure Peter, because
you take care that his soul is not stained with so many crimes ;
nor yet Francis, because you manage his business advantageously.
It follows from this that you are allowed not only to advise Peter
in this case to commit the theft, but also to help materially in the
act, because you do not help in an act which is not permissible in
itself and wicked, but which is rather good and honest so far as
you are concerned, being committed with the tacit and assumed
consent of the owner of the property who, it is supposed, in order
to escape death, has given you permission to aid in the theft, so
that his death is prevented by this assistance. This is the view
of Sanchez, Bonacina and Vasquez.”*

\ The Jesuit Voit says :

“ In regard to the knotty question whether it is a sinful offence
to recommend a lesser sin to one who would otherwise certainly
commit a greater, Valentia and Sa reply that it is not permissible,
for even the smaller sin remains a sin, consequently to advise it
always remains something bad in itself ; Laymann, Dicastillo and
others reply with a distinction. If the lesser evil is comprised in
the greater, and the greater evil cannot be prevented otherwise,
it is permissible to advise the lesser evil, because then the lesser
sin is not advised and suggested, but it is only intended that he
who is determined to commit the greater sin shall abstain from
committing a part of it. It is not permissible, however, to advise
the lesser evil when it is by no means contained in the greater evil —
for example, to advise one who is determined to commit a murder
to get drunk — for that means to cause him to commit a sin which he
had by no means intended to commit. In the former case, that
evil is not directly advised, but it is chosen as a means for pre-
venting the greater evil. Sanchez and other weighty theologians
declare it to be permissible to recommend the lesser evil, although
it is not contained in the greater, because then also the evil is not
recommended as such, but only as a means of hindering the greater
evil. ... He who does not remove the occasion for sin [though

* Opens moralis pars prima , tom. 1, pp. 476-478. Ed. Lugd„ 1669.

Jesuit Morality 327

it is in his power] to the end that the person should be detected,
amend and repent, does not sin, because this action is not designed
to lead into sin, but to permit a sin as a means for the prevention
of many sins.” *

It follows from these passages :

1. That the recommending of a lesser sin, the
presenting of an opportunity and the inducement
to commit it, is morally permissible if it is done
in order to prevent a greater sin. 2. That the preven-
tion of the greater sin is clearly and distinctly desig-
nated as a “ good end.” 3. That as the recommendation
to sin, no matter how small it may be, is in itself
bad, Jesuit morality sets up the principle that a
“ means ” in itself bad (advising, presenting of an oppor-
tunity for the lesser sin) is morally permissible, and is
“ sanctified ” by the “ good end ” (prevention of the
greater sin).

That this is the substance of the above moral and
theological principles cannot be contraverted by any
subtleties. On the contrary, the subtleties which the
Jesuit Becanus, etc., employ to veil this result, make it
even clearer to every person endowed with healthy
judgment. And it is just these subtleties which
show in an unparalleled way the unhealthiness of
Jesuit moral feeling, and justify my assertion that
the darkest shadows in Jesuit morality are here to be
found.

3. Tyrannicide. — Juan Mariana, a celebrated Jesuit
and an “ ornament ” of his Order, has defined with un-
precedented candour and minuteness of detail the doctrine
of the lawfulness of the murder of princes (not only tyrants)
in his book Concerning the King and his Education ( De rege
et regis institution e), published in 1599 at Toledo. The

* Theolog . moral . Edit. Lugtlun, 1850, I., 402, 408.

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

328

book bears the imprimatur of the Order, dated “ Madrid,
December 2nd, 1598 ” :

“ I, Stephan Hojeda, Visitator of the Society of Jesus
for the Province of Toledo, give, under the power of special
authority from our General, Claudius Acquaviva, per-
mission that the three books, Concerning the King and his
Education , written by Father John Mariana, of the same
Society, may be published, because they have been
previously sanctioned by learned and distinguished men
of our Order.”*

The sixth chapter of the first book says :

“ A noble monument has been recently erected in France which
shows how important it is that the people should be pacified. . . .
Henry III., King of France, lies there murdered by the hand of a
monk, and the charm of the knife has been thrust into his entrails.
This is an ugly but memorable spectacle calculated to teach princes
[‘ principes ,’ not 4 tyrannos J ] that godless, hazardous enterprises
do not remain unpunished. . . . Jacques Clement . . . studied
theology at the college of his Order, the Dominican. When he,
in answer to his question, had been told by the theologians that a
tyrant could justly be killed ... he went into the camp on
July 31st, 1589. ... On August 1st, which is dedicated to the
chains of the Apostle Peter, after reading Mass ( sacris operatus),
he obeyed the summons of the King, who was out of bed but not

* The approval of Mariana’s doctrine by the censorship of the Order has caused
so much annoyanco to the Jesuits that they keep it as secret as possible. Thus,
for example, the Jesuit Cathrein, a learned luminary of the German Province,
specially emphasises the official approval of Mariana’s book, but suppresses its
approval by the Jesuit Order (Moralphilosophie, II. (4), 671 (Freiburg, 1904) ).
Here is a still more significant circumstance. When I wrote the work Warum
sollen die Jesuiten nicht nach Deutschland zuriickt in 1891, under compulsion
of obedience to the Order (as I shall presently show), I mentioned the imprimatur
of the Order in discussing Mariana’s book. The Jesuit Ratgeb, at that time
Provincial, requested me to omit this passage : u Why should we,” was the gist
of his comment, “ put weapons into our enemies’ hands ? ” Reusch charged me
with the sin of omission in the Deutscher Merkur, and only then did the Jesuit
Ratgeb consent to the reinsertion of the passage — t.e. the mention of the
Order’s imprimatur — in the second edition of my work, on the ground that the
fact had now been made known and it would no longer be advantageous to
suppress it.

Jesuit Morality 329

completely dressed. During a conversation, he drew nearer to
the King, apparently to present a letter, and inflicted a deep wound
in the vicinity of the bladder with a knife hidden under medicinal
herbs. What magnificent presence of mind ! what a glorious
action ! . . . The courtiers who rushed in covered him [the monk]
with wounds. ... He [the monk] bought the liberty of his
country and nation with his blood ; he rejoiced exceedingly in spite
of blows and wounds. He won a great name through the murder
of the King. . . . Thus died Clement, France’s everlasting glory,
as most people believe. . . . Opinions differ as to the monk’s
act. Whilst many praise him and consider him worthy of eternal
renown, others, distinguished by discretion and learning, blame
him : It is not permissible, they say, for any man on his own
authority ... to kill a king deposed by the nation. . . . And
they confirm this with many proofs and examples. . . . This is
what those teach who espouse the cause of the tyrant. But those
who espouse the people’s cause can bring forward as many and as
weighty proofs. It is certain that a king may, if the circumstances
require it, be cited before their tribunal by the community from
which he derives his kingly authority, and, if he scornfully rejects
the remedy, may be divested of his princely rank. ... We also
see that, from ancient times, those who have murdered tyrants
are held in honour. ... I observe that philosophers and theo-
logians agree as to the fact that a prince who has taken possession
of a state by arms and violence, without right and without the
consent of the nation, may be deprived of life and power by any-
body (a quocunque). As he is an open enemy and wrongfully
oppresses the country and has the nature and name of a tyrant
in truth and reality, he may be removed by any means (amoveatur
quacunque ratione) and be deprived of the power of which he has
forcibly possessed himself. . . . When a prince enjoys his power
by consent of the people, or by inheritance, his oppressions and
whims must be borne as long as he chooses to infringe those laws
of honour and morality to which he is bound as a person. For
princes must not be changed lightly. . . . But if he brings ruin
on the state . . . this must not be overlooked in silence. But
first the method of deposing such a prince must be carefully con-
sidered. . . . The most practicable and safest method seems to

330 Fourteen Years a Jesuit

be to authorise the public assembly to determine in general con-
ference what is to be done. ... If the prince then amends, I
consider that he must again be reinstated and stronger measures
need not be adopted. If he refuses the remedy, however . . .
it is permissible to deprive him of his power after judgment has
been passed upon him. . . . And if the state cannot defend
itself in any other way, it is permissible, according to the law of
self-defence and on a man’s own authority, to kill the prince, who
has been declared an open enemy, with the sword ( ferro perimere).
And this authority is possessed by every private individual who
seeks to aid the state, abandoning all hope of impunity, at the
risk of his own salvation. You ask what is to be done when the
authority of the public assembly [of the Estates] has been suspended,
as may frequently occur. In my opinion, the matter remains the
same . . . and he who, in accordance with public wishes, tries
to kill the prince has, in my opinion, not acted wrongly. This is
adequately confirmed by the evidence which I have already brought
forward against the tyrants. Consequently it is only the question
of fact (questio facti) which is disputable, i.e. who should be regarded
as a tyrant ; the question of justice {questio juris ) is clear that a
tyrant may be killed. . . . It is well for princes to consider that,
if they oppress the State and become unbearable through their
vices and moral infamies, their life hangs in the balance, and that
it is not only lawful to kill them, but even honourable and glorious;
... If all hope [of the prince’s reformation] has disappeared,
and if the State and the sacredness of religion are in danger, who
is so devoid of wisdom that he cannot acknowledge that it is right
to shake oS tyranny by means of the law and by weapons ? . . .
This is my opinion founded on sincere conviction, and since, being
human, I may be mistaken, I shall be thankful if anyone can
advance anything better. I close the discussion with the words
of the tribune, Flavius, who, convicted of participation in the
conspiracy against Nero, and asked why he had forgotten his oath,
replied, c No soldier was more faithful than I at the time when you
deserved to be loved. I began to hate you when you became a
matricide, wife-murderer, racer and incendiary.’ A soldierly and
brave spirit ! ”*

* De rege et regia inatitutione, pp. 65-80.

Jesuit Morality 331

In Chapter 7 Mariana asks the question, “Is it per-
missible to kill a tyrant by poison ? ” He writes :

“ It is a glorious thing to exterminate the whole of this pesti-
lential and pernicious race [of tyrants] from the community of
mankind. Limbs, too, are cut off when they are corrupt, that
they may not infect the remainder of the body ; and likewise this
bestial cruelty in human shape must be separated from the State
and cut off by the sword. . . . The question is only whether a
public enemy and tyrant may also be killed by poison and deadly
plants. This question was addressed to me a few years ago by a
prince in Sicily when I was teaching theology there. ... In my
-opinion, it is not permissible to mix either an injurious medium
or poison in food or drink. But there is one reservation [killing
by means of poison is permissible] : if the person to be killed is
not obliged to drink the poison, but the poison is applied from
outside without the co-operation of [the person to be killed]. Thus,
for example, if the poison is so virulent that a chair or dress
besmeared with it has the power to kill.”*

Consequently Mariana has not only “ tyrants, usurpers ”
in his mind, as is asserted by Jesuits, but also legitimate
princes ( principes ) who rule “ tyrannically.”

The attitude of the Order towards Mariana’s teaching
is extremely instructive.

The approval of his doctrine by the censorship of the
Order, based on an examination by “ learned and impor-
tant ” theologians, has already been mentioned. Only
seven years after the publication of the book does General
Acquaviva seem to have found fault with the contents
in a letter to the French Province of the Order. But the
censure is made in such a general manner and without
mentioning any name, that it cannot positively be shown
to be directed against Mariana.

* Ibid., pp. 81-85. The Jesuit Cathrein had the audacity to write opposite
these plain words of Mariana’s, “ But only by open violence [may a tyrant be
killed, according to Mariana], not by poisoning, as Mariana emphatically adds
later” ( MaralphUosophie , H. (4), 672 (1) ).

332

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

Again and again I must repeat that the Jesuits rely
on the blind credulity of their readers. And, indeed,
how easy it would have been for the General of the Order,
if he had really wished to condemn and censure Mariana’s
teaching, to have expressed his condemnation and censure
in an effective manner, and checked the further circulation
of the book.

Instead of this, a reprint of Mariana’s book was issued
at Mayence {typis Balthasaris Lipii, impensis haeredum
Andreae Wechelii) in 1605. And it cannot be doubted that
this was published with at least the tacit consent of the
Jesuits, who were then almost omnipotent at Mayence.
Indeed, the omission of Mariana’s most disgraceful words
regarding the murderer of Henry III. (“ France’s eternal
glory”), an omission which, as Reusch pertinently indicates,
“ would scarcely have been suggested by the Protestant
publisher,”* renders the conclusion as to the co-operation
of the Jesuits in the new edition almost inevitable. Even
the Jesuit Duhr admits that it may be “ possible that
the changes in the Mayence edition are due to a
Jesuit. ”f

Consequently the words of Isaac Casaubon, addressed
as far back as 1611 to the Jesuit Fronton Le Due, remain
unanswered and unanswerable :

“ . . . Wechel’s Successors are merchants, and do not pretend
to any literary knowledge. They were informed by a Jesuit of
high standing that Mariana’s book, printed at Toledo and approved,
was to be issued in a complete edition for the public weal. They
were not expected to do anything except defray the cost of printing ;
they were not to trouble about anything else, because the book
was to be published at Mayence by the Fathers of the Society of
Jesus. They did as they were bidden. Wechel’s Successors

* Beitrdge zur Geschichte des J esuitenordens (Munich, 1894), p. 7.

•j J esuitenfabdn (4), p. 739. ’

Jesuit Morality 333

supplied the money, as requested, and the Jesuits managed every-
thing else.”*

The murder of Henry IV. by Ravaillac followed on
May 14th, 1610. A storm of indignation arose in France
against Mariana’s doctrine, the Parisian Sorbonne had his
book burnt by the public executioner, and only then did
the Order, in the person of its General, Acquaviva, oppose
the doctrine. But even this opposition which, as
circumstances show, was due solely to opportune reasons,
presents so much that is characteristic of the Jesuits
that we are justified in doubting whether it was meant
seriously.

In the first place, Acquaviva issued a letter on July 6th,
1610, which threatened with the most severe punishment
all those belonging to the Order who defended the per-
missibility of tyrannicide. (Here, too, Mariana is not
named.) It is a striking fact that this threat was not
sent to Spain, where naturally the greatest impression had
been made for the previous twelve years by Mariana’s
book, nor yet to the remaining Provinces of the Order,
but only to France, obviously to appease the bitter anger
which prevailed there against the Order owing to the
murder of the King. On August 14th, 1610, Acquaviva
wrote to the remaining Provinces of the Order in a different
key and without the threat of punishment. f

Meanwhile, the indignation against the Jesuits caused
by Mariana’s teaching continued to increase, and troubles
of every kind came upon the Order from every side.
Finally, Acquaviva caused a third letter, dated August 1st,
1614, four years after his first letter, to be sent to all the
Provinces, repeating the threat of punishment contained
in the first letter, which had only been sent to Paris.t

* Casauboni Epistolae , Edit. 2 (Magdeburg, 1G66), p. 728 et sea.

f Monumenta Germ, paed., 9, 48 (3).

: ibid., 9 , 47 .

334

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

This threat was then also inserted in the Constitutions of
the Order : *

“ In virtue of holy obedience, under pain of excommunication,
ineligibility to hold any office, privation of ecclesiastical office and
other punishments at the will of the General, it is commanded that
no person belonging to our Society shall presume to assert publicly
or privately, in lectures or in counsels, and still less in books,
that any person ( cuique personae) is permitted under any pretext
of tyranny ( quocunque praetextu tyrannidis) to kill kings or princes,
or to contrive their death : praecipitur . . ,,nequis . . .affirmare
praesumat, licitum esse cuique personae, quocunque praetextu tyran-
nidis, lieges aut Principes occidere, seu mortem eis machinariP

But this “ severe ” decree is probably the most cunning
piece of deception which has ever been published officially
concerning an important matter. For under the prohibi-
tion accompanied by the heaviest punishments, “that it is
not permitted to any person under any pretext of tyranny
to kill kings or princes,” is concealed the permission that
certain persons, under certain pretexts of tyranny or in
face of “ real ” tyranny, are allowed to do so. In
addition the perfect tense licitum, esse , instead of the
present licere, should perhaps be rendered “ has been
permitted,” in which case it is possible that the whole
decree, together with its punishments, only refers to the
past, so that a prohibition of the doctrine of tyrannicide
for the present and future is not contained in the decree.

Thus the opposition of the Order to Mariana closed
with a piece of real Jesuitical equivocation. Where
clearness and exactitude of expression were necessary and
easy, after fifteen years of vacillation, words were chosen
which do not absolutely exclude the permissibility of

* Inst. S.J, Censurae et praecepta homimbvs Socieiatie xmposita (Edit. Romse,
1870), II., 51.

Jesuit Morality 335

tyrannicide in certain circumstances (e.g. in cases of
“ real ” tyranny) for the present and future.*

The following facts also throw a curious light on the
subject of Jesuits and tyrannicide.

When, after the attempt by John Chatel, a pupil of
the Jesuits at Clermont, to murder Henry IV. of France,
on December 27th, 1594, a domiciliary visit was made
to the Jesuit college of that place, such incriminating
documents were found in the possession of the Jesuit
Guignard that he was put on his trial and was hanged
on January 7th, 1595. The Jesuit Prat, the historio-
grapher of the Order for the period between 1564-1626,
can find nothing to bring forward in defence of his fellow-
member y but : “ Les auteurs du tenths s’accordent si peu
sur la nature de ces pieces qu’il rfest pas possible de la
conclure de leurs recits” He was obliged to admit, how-
ever : “II est cependant probable que le P . Guignard , en
qualite de bibliothecaire (/), avait la collection des ecrits de
toute sorte qui avaient ete publies sur le meurtre de Guise ,
sur le crime de Jacques Clement [the murderer of Henry III.
extolled by the Jesuit Mariana].”

* The Jesuits try to reason away the offensive wording of the threat. The
means adopted for this purpose are not very skilful. They assert that {see Ruhr,
S.J., J esuitenfabeln (4), p. 741 (3) ) not cuique personae , but cuicunque personae
stood in the original text of the decree, and that cuique is a “ printer’s error.”
But this ” printer’s error ” is to be found in two editions of the Constitutions
officially published by the Jesuits themselves and declared to be “ authentic,”
namely, the Prague edition (1757,11., 5) and the Roman (1870, II., 51). Accord-
ing to Duhr, it is true, the word used in the newest edition of the Constitutions of
1893 is cuicunque. The Order refused to let me look at this edition, which cannot
be obtained through booksellers. But even if the statement about the remarkable
“ printer’s error ” is correct, this does not alter the sense of the passage in question.
Whether we should read cuique or cuicunque personae , in both cases the translation
is, “ Any person has been permitted,” etc. The ambiguity consequently remains.
The Jesuits Prat, Schneemann, Duhr and Reichmann do their best to place the
attitude of the Order towards Mariana in a better light by means of all kinds of
“ historical data.” Reuscli puts aside these efforts with the remark, “ The data
here collected may be shown as partly false, partly inaccurate, and partly undemons -
trable ” {Beitrage, p. 9), and proves his verdict.

f Recherche*, etc. (Lyons, 1876), I., 1888*

336

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

Paolo Sarpi states* that, after the murder of Henry IV.,
a Jesuit had extolled this deed as meritorious from a
pulpit in Prague. And Sarpi adds the characteristic
words : “ Even if the French Jesuits deny that they
approve of the doctrine [Mariana’s], I do not believe
them, even if they swear it ; they try to deceive
God by some equivocation, mental subterfuge, or silent
reservation.”

A “ memorandum,” dated April 1st, 1606, signed by
the Governor of the Tower, Sir William Waad, and by
two other witnesses (W. Lane and J. Locherson), reports
concerning the Jesuit Garnet, who was confined in the
Tower owing to his participation in the Gunpowder Plot :
“ Garnet doth affirm, that if any man hath or should
undertake to kill His Majesty, that he is not bound to
confess it, though he be brought and examined before a
lawful magistrate, unless there is proof to convince
him.” f

It is certain from the testimony of the Duke of Aveiro
and the Counts of Atougouia and Tavora (all three of
whom were executed as accomplices) that the Jesuits,
especially the Jesuit Malagrida, by instigation and advice,
had a share in the attempted murder of King Joseph of
Portugal (September 3rd, 1758). Amongst the papers
belonging to the Jesuit Malagrida, one was found addressed
to the Lady-in-Waiting, Anna de Lorena, and sent back
by her to the writer, in which, months before the per-
petration of the act, reference is made to it. J

Nor was Mariana’s doctrine without influence on the
Jesuit education of the young. In 1760, the Jesuit
Longbois made his pupils compose an essay which bore

* Letter dated June 22nd, 1610, to Leschasser, Le Bret, Magazin , 2, 318.

■f Jardine, A Narrative of the Gunpowder Plot (London, 1857), p. 238 (1).

J Heeren und Ukert, Geschichte der europdischen Staaten : Schafer, Geschichte
von Portugal (Gotha, 1854), V., 281 et seq.

Jesuit Morality 337

the heading, “ Brutus encourages himself to murder
Caesar,” in which the sentence occurred, “ Shall I kill
Caesar ? He is the Emperor . . . yet a tyrant : Brutus
ad caedem Caesaris se hortatur . Caesarem interficiam ? Est
imperator . . . sed tyr annus .”*

* Reusch, Beitrdge , p. 57.

\V

CHAPTER XXV

JESUIT MORALITY AND THE STATE

The Jesuits, though not the authors, are the most
energetic champions and propagators of the doctrine of
the indirect supremacy of the Church (Papacy) over the
State.

Since the two greatest theologians of the Jesuit Order,
Bellarmin and Suarez, reduced this doctrine, inclusive of
the right of the Pope to depose princes, to a properly
articulated system, it has been a rocher de bronze of
Ultramontane Catholic dogmatics and canon law, until
at length the Syllabus of December 8th, 1864, and the
Encyclicals of Leo XIII. and Pius X. raised it from
the sphere of theological opinions to the height of a dog-
matically established doctrine.* And this promotion is
the work of the Jesuit Order.

No matter what dogmatic, canonical or moral-theo-
logical books by Jesuits we open, we encounter in all
the indirect power of the Church over the State. The
subject is so important that I will cite numerous proofs.
I will begin with the present General of the Jesuit Order,
Francis Xavier Wernz, a German from Wiirtemberg :f

“ The State is subject to the jurisdiction of the Church, in
virtue of which the civil authority is really subordinate to the eccle-
siastical and bound to obedience. This subordination is indirect,

* Cf. my book, Rom und das Zentrum (Leipzig, Breitkopf und Hartel), p. 16
et scq.

t Jus Decretalium (Romae), 1898-1901.

338

Jesuit Morality and the State 339

but not merely negative, since the civil power cannot do anything
even within its own sphere which, according to the opinion of the
Church, would damage the latter, but rather positive, so that, at
the command of the Church, the State must contribute towards
the advantage and benefit of the Church.”*

“ Boniface VIII. pointed out for all time the correct relation
between Church and State in his Constitution TJnam sanctam , of
November 18th, 1302, the last sentence of which [that every person
must be subject to the Roman Pope] contains a dogmatic definition
[a dogma]. f The legislative power of the Church extends to
everything that is necessary for the suitable attainment of the
Church’s aims. A dispute which may arise as to the extent of
the ecclesiastical legislative authority is not settled only by a
mutual agreement between Church and State, but by the infallible
declaration or command of the highest ecclesiastical authority .” %
“ From what has been said [namely, that the Pope may only
make temporal laws in the Papal States], it by no means follows
that the Roman Pope cannot declare civil laws, which are contrary
to Divine and canonical right, to be null and void.§ The theory,
which calls the Concordats Papal privileges, whilst denying the
co-ordination of State and Church, assumes the certain and
undoubted doctrine that the State is indirectly subject to the
Church. This opinion is based on the Catholic doctrine of the
Pope’s irrevocable omnipotence, in virtue of Divine right, the
valid application of which cannot be confined or restricted by any
kind of compact.” ||

“ As it not infrequently occurs that, in spite of attempted
friendly settlement, the dispute [between Church and State] con-
tinues, it is the duty of the Church authentically to explain the
point of dispute. The State must submit to this judgment.”1T
“ The most celebrated pronouncements of Pius IX. are the
encyclical Quanta cur a and the Syllabus of December 8th, 1864.
There is no doubt that the encyclical Quanta cura is an ex cathedra
pronouncement of the Pope, and is thus infallible. But the Syllabus
can also rightly be named a definition ex cathedra , although the
certainty as to this is less clear than in the case of the encyclical

* Jus Decrelalium, 15 el seq. f Ibid., 29. J Ibid,, 105.

§ Ibid., 147. || Ibid., 216. IT Ibid., 223.

340

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

Quanta cura. Since, however, both documents have received the
assent of the bishops, they have both become the certain and
infallible rule of conduct.”*

The central organ of the Jesuit Order, the Civilta
cattolica, published for more than fifty years at Rome,!
says :

cc The aim of the civil community or of the State is exclusively
temporal happiness. But this is subordinate, in the human being
who has an immortal soul, to eternal happiness, to which the Church
and the Church alone can lead. In the case of a human being
who is both a Christian and a citizen of the State, the duty to obey
the Church stands higher than the duty to obey the State, for God
must be obeyed rather than man. Consequently the authority
of the State is subordinate to the authority of the Church. But
the subordination of the State to the Church is not only com-
manded by reason. This is also the general teaching of the Fathers
and Doctors of the Church [the consensus theologorum ]. . . .
Finally, Pope Boniface VIII. expressly teaches in his dogmatic
bull TJnam sctnctam, in which he compares the two powers with
the two swords mentioned in the Gospel, that the temporal power
must be subordinated to the ecclesiastical. . . . That which
apparently belongs to the domain of the State, such as purely
civil and political affairs, is completely assured against all danger
of encroachment on the part of the ecclesiastical authority. It is
true that the line of demarcation cannot always be clearly discerned
at the points of contact. But even here a dispute between State

* Jus Decretalium, 354 et seq. It is very remarkable that the leading Centre
organ, the Kolnische Volkszeitung ( Literarische Beilage , 1901, No. 52, p. 399 et
seq.), bestows great praise on the work of Wernz, calling “ its programmatic
statements [and the statements given as illustrations are doubtless ‘ program-
matic’] modern in the best sense of the word.”

t The Civilta cattolica is the recognised mouthpiece of the Vatican. Pius IX.
gave it this character in a brief of February 12tli, 1866, so that the Civilta cattolica
could write of itself, “ We are not, it is true, the originators of Papal thoughts,
and it is not according to our inspirations that Pius IX. speaks and acts, but we
certainly are the faithful echo of the Roman See ” (Supplement to the Allgemeine
Zeitung for November 19th and 20th, 1869). Leo XIII. and Pius X. stood and
stand in closest relation to the Civilta cattolica.

Jesuit Morality and the State 341

and Church is not permissible. For, since the former is subordinate
to the latter, the Church must always settle the dispute which
has arisen after courteous remonstrances and reasonable discussions,
and the State has no more right to oppose its decision than a lower
court of justice to resist the decision of a higher. . . . The

Christian principles as regards the relation of the Church to the
State are contained in the saying of Thomas Aquinas, 4 The temporal
power is subjected to the spiritual as is the body to the soul ; and
consequently it is no usurpation when a spiritual superior interferes
in temporal affairs. A distinction must be made here between
three kinds of concerns. In the first place, the purely spiritual,
such as public worship, the administration of the Sacraments and
the preaching of the Word of God ; these, of course, stand exclusively
under ecclesiastical authority. Secondly, the mixed concerns, as,
for example, marriage, burial and charitable institutions ; these
stand under the power of both, but so that the ecclesiastical
authority occupies the higher place and intervenes directly in
order to amend and annul anything which the civil laws may
have ordained in these matters in opposition to the Divine or
canonical laws. Finally, the purely temporal concerns, such as
the army, taxes and the civil laws. Although these stand directly
only under the civil power, they may indirectly [ ratione peccati ]
also fall under the ecclesiastical jurisdiction if, for instance, the
laws connected with them promote immorality, or are in any way
injurious to the spiritual welfare of the nation. In this case, the
laws issued by the civil power may and must be revised by eccle-
siastical authority, and rendered void. For it is the duty of the
ecclesiastical authority to prevent public sins and to remove the
obstacles in the way of eternal salvation. . . . Catholicism asserts
the necessity of that harmony which follows from the subjection
of the State to the Church. ... No distinction must be drawn
between individuals and the State ; both have the same duty :
the ruler does not live for himself, but for those whom he rules.
Consequently, he must so arrange his business that it is in accord-
ance with the necessities and the prosperity of his subjects, and
does not hinder but promote the fulfilment of their duties and the
attainment of the aim which they have as human beings. If,
then, their needs and welfare and the voice of duty necessitate

342

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

submission and obedience to the Church, the ruler cannot overlook
this in the arrangement and guidance of the social life of his subjects.
Obviously this holds good in every State, even though the ruler
should be heterodox ; how much more so where he is a Catholic !

“ ‘ The Church is a real kingdom, the kingdom of God on earth,
of which Christ is the invisible and the Pope the visible monarch.

. . . It is the duty of every person to be a subject of this king-
dom. . . . Every person baptised is, consequently, more subject
to the Pope than to any earthly ruler. . . .

“ * The Church is not subordinate to the State, but the State is
subordinate to the Church. . . . Hence it may amend and annul
the civil laws and the temporal decisions of the courts if they are
contrary to spiritual welfare ; it may check the abuse of the executive
power and of armed force, or command the use of the same when
it is necessary for the defence of Christian religion. The tribunal
of the Church is higher than the civil ; the higher tribunal may
revise the affairs of the lower, but, on the other hand, the lower
cannot in any way revise the affairs of the higher.’ ”*

The doctrines of the “ German ” Jesuits of the present
time are of special interest. Those of the German General
of the Order have been given already, and I will add the
opinions of others to his.

The Jesuit von Hammerstein writes : f

“ Some superiority of the Church over the State is consequently
indisputable ; on the other hand, any supremacy of the State
over the Church is but an illegal usurpation. But of what nature
is that hegemony of the Church ? How far does it extend ? By
what standard is it measured ? We reply : The Church has the
right, even where statesmen are concerned, ‘ to bind and to loose
all things,’ as far as the mission of the Church regards such a
c binding and loosing’ as desirable after judicious consideration
of the circumstances ; i.e. all spiritual affairs of States are directly
subordinate to the Church, and all temporal indirectly so far as

* Ser. 7, Vol. 5, pp. 139, 148, 276, 280, 647 ; Vol. 6, p. 19; Ser. 6, Vol. 7,
p. 27 ; Ser. 7, Vol. 6, pp. 291, 301.

t Kirche und Staat, Freiburg, 1SS3.

Jesuit Morality and the State 343

they are affected by the direct mission of the Church.* . . .
The system which we acknowledge touching the fundamental con-
ception of the Christian and social structure is consequently that
of the indirect power of the Church in temporal matters. We not
only maintain that this is the more correct view, but simply the
correct and only true one.f . . . The Church need not concern itself
with temporal matters, but with the incorporation of the temporal
(as of the subordinate and individual) into the spiritual. For incor-
poration is necessary, and no other kind than this is valid. J . . .
We may thus sum up the entire dominion of the Church (the outer
as well as the inner) : The Church stands above the State, directly
in spiritual, indirectly in temporal or, more accurately, in mixed
affairs, i.e. in such as, besides their temporal character, have also a
sufficient spiritual bearing as far as this extends. § ... In virtue of
its teaching office the Church possesses the power in case of necessity
to define the boundaries between Church and State, for it lies
directly within its province to establish the plenary power specially
conferred on it by revelation and to instruct the nations on the
subject. By this means, however, the task is also indirectly
imposed of defining the limits of the political jurisdiction. Not only
the relation between Church and State, but also the relations of
States to one another and to their dependents are subject to the
doctrinal judgment of the Church.)) ... If a State thinks it ought
to wage war against its neighbour, it is a peremptory demand of the
conscience that it should previously remove any doubt as to the
legitimacy and permissibility of the war in some way or other,
and if the subjects desire or are compelled to take part in the war
they must likewise be clear as to the permissibility of their course
of action. If they cannot themselves remove the doubt, it is the
duty of the parties concerned to apply for enlightenment to that
authority [the Papacy] which Christ has established for the reli-
gious instruction of nations.^ . . . The priests are bound to observe
the civil laws so far as they do not contradict the holy canons or
are not incompatible with the sanctity of their spiritual status.
But they are not subject to the civil laws quoad vim coactivam ,
because they cannot be cited before the temporal but only before
the ecclesiastical tribunal for the violation of these laws. Priests can
* P. 117. f P- 120. J P. 123. § P. 125. jj P. 133 H P. 134.

344

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

only be punished by a temporal judge if the Church hands them
over to the temporal arm for some just cause.’ 5 *

The Jesuit Laurentius writes :

“ The rights of the Church with regard to the State, as at present
claimed by the Church, are contained in the scheme of the Vatican
Council concerning the Church. . . . What was proposed there
corresponds well with the teaching of the indirect authority ( cum
doctrina de potestate indirecta bene conveniunt). After rejecting
the false doctrine concerning the origin and nature of the civil
authority, the scheme sets up the Catholic doctrine concerning the
civil authority. It teaches that . . . the judgment concerning
the rule of conduct in as far as it is possible to determine questions
of morality, permissibility or unlawfulness, belongs, even as regards
the State and public affairs, to the highest teaching office of the
Church.’’t

The next quotation is from the Jesuit Lehmkuhl. I
have already spoken of Lehmkuhl’s importance as a moral-
theological authority. Lehmkuhl and his teachings have,
however, also a political significance. For it is an in-
teresting fact that, in discussing and voting on the civil
code, the Centre Party was guided by the directions of
the Jesuit Lehmkuhl ; and there seems no reason why
it should not again apply to Lehmkuhl as its adviser in
other cases also.J

* P. 141.

j- Institut. juris ecclesiastici (Freiburg, 1903), p. 643, 644.

J Hermann Oncken published in his book, Rudolf von Bennigsen (Munich, 1909),
a letter by the leader of the Centre party, Karl Bachem, addressed to Bennigsen
on July 6th, 1896, in whch Bachem states that in the “ Compromise ” which the
Centre had arranged with the other parties with reference to the civil code, the
collaboration “ of the German Jesuits, especially of their most prominent authority,
P. Lehmkuhl, was of the first importance. In the other discussions, too, con-
cerning the marriage law,” Bachem relates further, “ we have always enjoyed the
disinterested advice of the Jesuits, and if we have succeeded in finding a way
enabling the Centre in the final vote to approve the great national work . . .
the Jesuits have done outstanding service to our side.” Bachem demands
as compensation, because “ the Jesuits, in an extremely important matter, have

Jesuit Morality and the State 345

In a commentary on the civil code,* Lehmkuhl minutely
criticises Germany’s most important code of laws from
the point of view of the Divine and ecclesiastical law, and
declares there are many things in it which, from the
standpoint of the Church’s supremacy over the State,
must be rejected.

“ Because civil law and the natural and ecclesiastical law clash
on several points, the Catholic cannot conscientiously avail himself
of all the rights which the civil code confers on the citizens of the
State ; the spiritual director and confessor must in certain cir-
cumstances impose a duty which the civil code does not set up.”f

This mobilisation of the forces of the spiritual directors
and Catholic lawyers (for we must not forget the Union of
Catholic lawyers) against the civil code has spread far
and wide, for even in 1900 Lehmkuhl’s Commentary had
reached its fifth edition.^

Lehmkuhl writes in his Moral Theology :

“It is evident that an oath taken in accordance with the civil
law and constitution can never be binding with reference to laws
which are contrary to the Divine or ecclesiastical law. Indeed,
if there is a controversy between the State and Church at the time
when the oath is required and civil laws are issued or emphasised
which are directed against God and the Church, it is not permissible
to swear except with reservation and the omission of these laws.
But if these [anti-ecclesiastical] laws are, as it were, buried in the
codes, although they have not been expressly pronounced invalid

again so brilliantly proved their patriotic attitude,” Bennigsen’s assistance in the
matter of the suspension of the entire Jesuit law, which Bennigsen refused.
Germany consequently owes its civil code “ in the first instance ” to the Jesuits,
and especially to the Jesuit Lehmkuhl.

* Das Bilrgerliche Gesetzbuch des Deutschen Reichs ncbst E infii hru ngsgesetz,
Freiburg, 1900.

f lb id., V or wort, p. vii.

J Further information as to Lehmkuhl’s verdict is to be found in my book,
Moderner Staat und Romische Ktrche (Berlin : C. A. Schwetschke und Sohn, 1900)
pp. S0-88.

346

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

by the State, it is not then necessary to add such a protest expressly,
as the person who takes the oath must reasonably so understand
the sense of the oath that it only applies to valid laws. Kenrick
and Sabetti [Jesuits] teach the same for America. The same may
be said about every oath of allegiance and the military oath ; they
must also be understood in like manner in ordinary circumstances.
Consequently, if a soldier is commanded to do something which
is so obviously wrong as to require him to refuse obedience, or if
he, through his officer’s fault, is exposed to spiritual dangers, it
would be better to desert from military service than be exposed
to such immediate occasion for sin ; the obligation of his oath
need not prevent him from being permitted or, under some cir-
cumstances, even compelled to leave the colours. Indeed, if
anyone is forced to become a soldier \e.g. in all States where con-
scription prevails], it must be considered whether the compulsion
were just, or whether the oath be invalid owing to unjust com-
pulsion, or whether it involved an important reason for mental
restriction or dissimulation in swearing* . . . The obligation of
the oath [ i.e . of any oath] can be directly removed by the eccle-
siastical authority, namely, by the power of the Pope and the
bishops, or by others legally delegated in accordance with the
will of the Pope.”*

But the strongest incitement to the disregarding of
civil laws is afforded by the Jesuit Lehmkuhl in his Con-
science Cases:]

“ The priest Remigius, who had been banished from his native
land by laws relating to ecclesiastical policy, nevertheless frequently
returns in disguise, even for pleasure, exercises spiritual functions
and rejoices over the fact that he breaks the laws with impunity.
When the functionary Paul, a pious Catholic, hears this, he takes
no action, but he is scandalised at the fact that Remigius does not
observe the laws issued by the legitimate power, and begs him,

* Theologia moralis , I., n. 411, 421, 423, 6 Edit, Friburgi, 1890.

| Moral theology calls imaginary occurrences, which it uses as foundations
for the instruction of confessors, " conscience cases ” ( casus conscientiae). The
** Conscience Cases ” of the Jesuits Gury and Lehmkuhl are best known and most
widely circulated.

Jesuit Morality and the State 347

through a friend, to discontinue such proceedings in future in order
that he may not be obliged, should Remigius be denounced to
him, to punish him according to his office and conscience. Remigius
sends him a jesting reply to the effect that he fears neither laws
nor fines ; if a fine should be imposed upon him, he has a key at
his disposal with which he could open Paul’s money chest so as
to take from him the money to pay it ; if he should be con-
demned to imprisonment, he has arms and weapons with which
he could defend himself. The questions are : 1. How must these
laws and penalties be judged ? 2. Did Remigius act rightly, or

was Paul right to take offence ? 3. May Remigius carry out in

earnest what he has threatened in jest ?

“ I reply to the first question that it does not follow that because
such laws have been issued by the legislative power they are proper
laws. Else we must also call the edicts issued by Diocletian against
the Christians proper laws. It has been stated above that, accord-
ing to the doctrine of St. Thomas Aquinas, it is essential to the
existence and comprehension of a law that it should be a reasonable
regulation, issued by those who are devoted to the care of the
community, and that it must be promulgated. If only one of these
conditions is lacking, it is no law ; in case of uncertainty the pre-
sumption is in favour of the legitimate legislator. Now in the case
of these laws, most of these conditions, not one alone, are lacking.
They are in truth and reality not reasonable regulations because,
for numerous reasons, they are not just, because they violate the
superior right of the Church, the right of the priest and the right
of the Catholic nation ; indeed, they may perhaps even attempt
to urge the priest to commit a dishonourable and forbidden action.
They do not proceed from a person who is devoted to the care of
the community, consequently not from the legitimate authority.
For care for religious matters and for the religious community is
not incumbent on the State. Consequently the authority has
even less legitimacy than if the French Government wished to
make laws for the German Empire. If the laws are invalid as
prohibitory laws, then the penalty inflicted by them is not legally
imposed, but is unjust, i.e. these laws are null and void as penal
laws.

“ To the second question I reply : Remigius is not guilty of

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

348

any transgression of the law ; for an invalid law is no law. Con-
sequently, whether he returned to his native land for the sake
of recreation or to bring spiritual help to others, he did not transgress
the law. Therefore his pleasure in the non-payment of the fine
is completely free from objection ; the rather that the joy at
violating this law, which is in itself invalid, is not morally blame-
worthy. Paul’s vexation is consequently unfounded. Generally
also such a manner of dealing [as that of Remigius] should not be
a cause of offence to Catholics, but rather of edification. If Paul,
owing to his faulty education, does not understand that which
even uneducated people understand, he must be taught better.
Paul unjustly threatens to inflict fines. He has acted rightly up
to now by overlooking the matter, because it is not only no duty,
but even unpermissible, to carry an unjust law into effect. But
he may admonish Remigius and beg him to give up coming back
in this way if possible, or to act carefully, so that he (Paul) may not
be involved in any difficulties.

“ To the third question I reply : This question may take the
following form. Is not Paul, if he imposes the fine upon Remigius,
obliged to refund it, as a violation of justice has taken place ? May
not Remigius oppose an attempt at arrest ? The first question
must be answered in the affirmative if Paul’s treatment is objec-
tively unjust, has produced a result and is theologically very sinful.
Now Paul’s deed is objectively unjust ; it produces an actual
effect as soon as Remigius is obliged to pay, and there can be no
doubt as to the theological sin. Paul, however, may be excused
owing to subjective ignorance. In such a case, it is true, he would
not himself be obliged to refund ; but Remigius, in demanding
to be refunded, need not assume this good faith on Paul’s part.
Although it would be better for Remigius to fall back upon the
chief offenders, namely, upon the originators of the unjust law,
for repayment, he may yet betake himself to any person imme-
diately concerned in the wrong, especially if the other persons
can only be reached with difficulty. A distinction must be drawn
in the second question. As the cause for which Remigius is punished
is evidently unjust, and this is clear to every reasonable person,
his defiance, if conducted without bodily injury to the officials,
is not blameworthy, if it is successful. If its failure could be anti-

Jesuit Morality and the State 349

cipated, or if it would give rise to offence, it would be better to
abstain from it. Armed defence, or bodily injury to officials would;
as a rule, not be permissible, mainly because it would occasion
greater evil and popular disturbances. If, therefore, Remigius
were to make use of arms and weapons, not to inflict wounds,
but only as a threat, he might easily be acquitted of all guilt.”*

Lehmkuhl was attacked by a Catholic critic on account
of this “ case. 55 In the preface to the second edition of
his “ Conscience Cases 55 he replies thus :

“ I am blamed because I have permitted a priest, who is expelled
by laws which are in themselves invalid because they have no
power over spiritual affairs, to disregard these laws even without
an imperative reason. But this blame has only strengthened me
in my opinion, because I see that it is absolutely necessary to
expel that most pernicious opinion from the people, that even
unjust and godless laws must be obeyed so long as their neglect
is not enforced by a higher law. This opinion lessens the authority
of the Church and strengthens tyranny. It must be maintained
absolutely that such laws, issued by a usurping power, possess
neither of nor in themselves any binding power ; but that, if they
were ever to be binding, this is only by chance so that greater
evil may not arise. Therefore, those who violate such laws, when
there is no danger that greater evil will ensue and, as in our ‘ case,’
seek to return to their country for pleasure, are morally right if
they do it in an honourable and temperate manner ; if they act
in an intemperate manner, they are guilty of intemperance, but
not of law-breaking.” f

TOLERATION, RELIGIOUS EQUALITY AND DENOMINATIONAL

PEACE

The hatred expressed in the Imago primi Saeculi, in
the first half of the seventeenth century, of all those who

* Casus conscientiae , I., casus 22, 2. Edit. Freiburg, 1903.
f Ibid., Preface, p. vii.

350

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

hold heterodox views, has remained the key-note of the
entire pastoral activity of the Jesuit Order.

“ Peace is out of the question. The seed of hate is
innate within us ; Ignatius is for us what Hamilcar was
for Hannibal. At his command we have sworn eternal
war [against the heretical wolves] at the altars.”*

An enormous mass of books and pamphlets against
“ heretics ” and “ heresy ” has been published in the
course of time by the Jesuit Order. Most of them are
tuned to a note in which rage and vulgarity are
mingled.

Time and custom have tempered many things. But
tolerance, religious equality and denominational peace
have never found acceptance among Jesuits. The Jesuit
Order regards these foundations of the modern civilised
State as symptoms of decay in the structure of the Christian
social order. And even at the present day wherever the
opportunity offers, especially under the favourite cloak
of anonymity, it still spits out poison and gall against
all who are not Ultramontane Catholics.

The present General of the Order, Francis Xavier
Wernz, says :f

“ The Catholic Church undoubtedly considers all religious
communities of unbelievers and all Christian [non-Catholic] sects
absolutely illegitimate and destitute of every claim to existence.
Duly baptised members of non-Catholic Christian sects are formal
rebels against the Church if they obstinately persist in their errors.
For through baptism they are subject to the absolute and eternal
control of the Church. It is, therefore, a grave error to believe
that the different Christian sects — for example, the Anglicans,
Lutherans, members of the Russian Orthodox Church, etc. — are
legitimate parts of some universal Church, and are, as it were,
joined to the Catholic Church as sister-churches. . . . The Catholic

♦ Imago primi Saeculi , p. 843.
f Jus DecretaUum (Romae 1898), I., 13, 52, 113.

Jesuit Morality and the State 351

Church alone possesses a real ecclesiastical law objectively and
subjectively ; what is sometimes so designated in the case of other
religious communities, whether of unbelievers, Jews, heretics or
schismatics, is only an apparent ecclesiastical law (jus putativum ) ;
it is therefore not permissible to deal in one and the same book
with the ecclesiastical law of Catholics, schismatics and Protestants.

. . . According to Divine right, all duly baptised Catholics,
schismatics and heretics, are subject to ecclesiastical law, even
against their wish or without their consent. 5 ’

The Jesuit Lehmkuhl writes :*

“ The Catholic Church insists, and has pronounced in recent
times through several Popes by solemn decrees,! that it is an
erroneous, perverse and absurd assertion, springing from the muddy
sources of indifierentism, that liberty of conscience is the individual
right of every person. . . . Freedom of cult can at best be regarded
as a lesser, perhaps even a necessary evil, so as to avoid greater
ones. . . . Inasmuch as by the word c cult 5 or denomination, an
organised society with definite religious aims, which is not in
harmony with the [Catholic] Church, is understood, the principle
naturally holds good that the denominations separated from the
Church have no justified existence ; they have no social rights.
... If denominations separated from the Church are to be regarded
as legitimate subjects, it is only in so far as their general aim is to
worship God in some way, but not in so far as they are especially
Wesleyans, etc. In their concrete form they are characterised by
an aim which is godless and false, and consequently falsifies human
nature and its claims. In this respect, therefore, they can never
attain a jot of true right and true legitimation, even should all
kingdoms of the world unite in their favour. ... It is useless
to object that the various sects separated from the Church do not
pursue such unnatural aims as heathen superstitions with their
many-headed monstrosity. This may be so. . . . But even if the

* Gewissens und Kultusjreihe.it : Stimmen aus Maria-Laach , 1876, pp. 195, 255,
257, 258, 266, 406, 534, 536.

t Gregory XVI., Mirari vos of August 15tli, 1832, and Pius IX., Quanta
cura of December 8tli, 1864.

352

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

error, to which they adhere in good faith, promotes the general
aim of the worship of God, good faith and even unmerited error
in no way remove from the specific character of the separate sects
as such the taint of objective illusion and consequent objective
illegitimacy. If good faith sufficed for the creation of an objective
and real right, all manner of things might be justified. We are far
from instituting a comparison here ; but good faith may possibly
exist even in the thieves’ caste in Madura. . . . It is the duty of
the State to be Catholic. A Catholic State and a Catholic prince
must always regard the denomination deviating [from the Catholic
Church] as an evil.”

The Jesuit von Hammerstein says :

“ The State, unless it desires to rebel against that power to
which it owes its entire authority, must be Catholic, or, if it is not,
must become so. We consider it a misfortune that in the delirium
for freedom of 1848 and the following years complete civil rights
were bestowed upon the Jews.” “ We regard as a regular and
healthy condition that in which the entire population without
religious schism acknowledges the [Catholic] Church founded by
Christ. ... On the other hand, we regard as an abnormal con-
dition that in which a large portion of the inhabitants are not
Catholics. . . . The emancipation of all cults — liberty of worship
— should never go beyond the requirements of the individual case.
... In case of doubt [as to the granting of liberty of worship],
enlightenment must be sought from those to whom Christ said,
‘ He that heareth you heareth Me.’ A monarch, even a constitu-
tional one, must, before he signs a law, regarding the admissibility
of which he is not absolutely certain, seek instruction, not only
from a theologian present at court, but conformably to the import-
ance of the matter [the granting of liberty of worship], from the
highest doctrinal authority on earth, whose duty it is to decide
in matters of religion and morals, the Vicar of Christ. . . .
Religious equality is a morbid condition which may be required by
circumstances.”*

* Kirche und Staat (Freiburg, 1883), pp. 81, 83, 180-182.

Jesuit Morality and the State 353

The Jesuit Cathrein says :

“ Objectively amongst all Churches the Catholic Church alone
has the right to existence, because it alone is the true one. Con-
sequently a Catholic government in an entirely Catholic land must
not permit the public exercise of other religious creeds, otherwise
it violates the right of the Church. It is not as though a govern-
ment had to decide what is true or false, revealed or not revealed,
but because it has the guarantee of the infallible ecclesiastical
authority. And as, according to God's purpose, all governments
and peoples should be Catholic, there ought to be only one religious
cult on earth, namely, the Catholic, so that all humanity should
form one great religious family under the Roman Pope, the Vicar
of Christ. . . . But this is an ideal aim which is far from being
realised. Actually at the present day in almost all countries
different religions are found side by side in peaceful possession.
What, then, should be the attitude of a Catholic government in a
land with an entirely mixed population towards the different
religious creeds ? We say a Catholic government advisedly. For a
government founded on principles of religious equality must afford
the same civil protection to all publicly acknowledged creeds. But
a Protestant government must, from its own religious point of view
— that of freedom in individual judgment — let its subjects decide
which of the Christian religions they wish to embrace. If, never-
theless, Protestant governments frequently persecuted those whose
faith was different, this only proved that they were not in earnest in
regard to freedom of judgment. Stress was only laid on freedom
of individual judgment so long as it could be used against the
existing ecclesiastical authority. Besides, a government can only
tolerate one particular religious creed and exclude others, if it is
absolutely certain of the correctness of the one and the falseness
of the others. But, apart from the evident truths founded on
reason as to the existence of God, the reward of good and evil in
the next world, etc., and some of the fundamental truths of Chris-
tianity, a government cannot attain this conviction of itself, but
only through the medium of an infallible, supernatural doctrinal
authority. A Catholic government can count upon this, but not a
Protestant. Is it then permissible for a Catholic government to

-V

354

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

accord complete freedom of public worship to the different Christian
or even heathen (Mohammedan and Jewish) creeds if so many and
such different denominations come within its sphere of power ?
Our answer is Yes, as soon as these can no longer be prevented
from existing without occasioning great evil. True, the non-
Catholic creeds have no right to existence in themselves ; and
unity in the true religion is so great a benefit for the State itself
that all efforts should be made to maintain it. This, however,
becomes morally impossible when once several religious com-
munities have gained a firm footing in a land and cannot be opposed
without occasioning greater evil. And, what is more, the Catholic
government may even, for very pressing reasons, permit the
adherents of other creeds to worship publicly and protect them in
this as in their other civil rights. This is civil toleration which
must be distinguished from religious toleration. A Catholic of
profound conviction and religious education, be he king, minister,
mayor or rural policeman, can afford religious tolerance to no
adherent of other religions ; but the Catholic government may and
must afford and practise civil toleration where it has become a
necessity.”*

The extreme limit of toleration, the killing of heretics,
also finds a place in the armoury of Jesuit morals and
ethics.

I will pass over the teachings of the most prominent
Jesuits of the seventeenth century (Bellarmin, Tanner,
Laymann, Escobar, Castropalao, etc.)f and will here only
put together a few of the remarks of “ modern ” Jesuits.

The Jesuit J. L. Wenig, Royal and Imperial Professor,
and in 1866 Rector at the University at Innsbruck, says :

“ The passing of the sentence of death upon heretics was at
any rate not unjust, as the crime of heresy can only be meetly
atoned for and entirely prevented from injuring the ecclesiastical

* Moralphilosophie, II. (4), pp. 563 et seq.

f They are to be found in my book, Moderner Staat und romische Kirche
Berlin : C. A. Schwetachke und Sohn, 1906), pp. 141 et seq .

Jesuit Morality and the State 355

and civil community by capital punishment. . . .We have seen
that the ecclesiastical Inquisition cannot agree., with the modern
ideas as to toleration, enlightenment and humanity, but, for all
that, I cry, c Long live the ecclesiastical Inquisition l 5 For these
ideas are not only unchristian, but also unreasonable, while the
mission of the Church whicn, through the Inquisition, watches
over the purity of dogmatic theology and ethics, is divine and
consequently independent of the spirit of the age and of circum-
stances.”*

The Jesuit de Luca says :

“ First of all the Church merely excommunicated, then imposed
fines, then banished, and finally, though only under compulsion,
proceeded to capital punishment. For, since heretics scorn excom-
munication and fines, and if sent to prison or exile, infect others,
the only effectual remedy is to send them prematurely to their own
proper place. . . . Theologians are so certain that the Church
has the right c at least indirectly 5 [through the State as bailiff] to
pass sentence of death that some most severely blame those who
dispute the right of the Church to inflict capital punishment. Suarez
[the chief theologian of the Jesuit Order] says it is a Catholic
doctrine that the Church may punish heretics with death.”f . . .
“ It is the duty of the State to punish the heretic with death at
the direction and by the order of the Church ; it cannot deliver
the heretic handed over to it by the Church from this punishment.
Capital punishment is not only incurred by those who have
apostasised as adults, but also by all who obstinately adhere to
the heresy imbibed with their mother’s milk. Where this punish-
ment exists, it is incurred by all apostates to heresy, even if they
wish to become reconverted, as well as by all who remain obstinate
when reproved for heresy.”;}; . . . “ Heretics and apostates who
previously belonged to the Church may be forced by the Church,
through bodily punishment and even capital punishment, to return

* Tiber die kirchliche und politische Inquisition , 1875, pp. 65, 72, 74.
f Institut. juris eccles. publici. Romae , 1901, I., 143, 145.
t Ibid., I., 143, 145, 146, 261 et seq.

356 Fourteen Years a Jesuit

to the true faith. This is what all theologians to-day teach in
accordance with St. Thomas Aquinas.”*

In the Kirclienlexikon, the Jesuit Granderath undis-
guisedly defends the justice of capital punishment. f

He declares that the punishments for heresy — banish-
ment, confiscation of property and death — appear heavy
at the present time, “ partly owing to the sentimental
objection to severe requital of crime, peculiar to our age,
and partly to an incorrect estimate of the crime of heresy.”

And the Jesuit Laurentius writes in another part of
the Kirclienlexikon :

“ If the Church excludes all those who have taken part in
executing a death sentence from service at the altar, it does not
follow that this punishment cannot also be inflicted by it. That
the Church has really the power, in her own right, to pass sentence
of death for severe offences against religious law, has frequently
been asserted, but the necessity for such a power cannot be proved,
and this authorisation does not clearly follow from Revelation.
The Church has contented herself with handing over the culprit to
the temporal arm with a request to spare the life of the condemned.”!

The Jesuit Order also gives, as officially as possible, a
very significant emphasis to its consent to the capital
punishment of heretics, which would scarcely be credited
were we not in possession of the authoritative proofs. In
its Ratio Studiorum, the Jesuit Order permits boys entrusted
to it for instruction and education to attend “ executions
of heretics ” :

“ They [the pupils] must not go to public exhibitions,
comedies, or plays, nor to executions of criminals, except
those of heretics.”]]

* Institut. juris cedes, publieu Romae . I., 270. t V. (2), 1445 et seq.

J XL (2), 1827. I have already shown in detail in my book, Das Papettum,
etc., I. (5), 180-201, that this “ request ” was a preposterous piece of malice
practised for centuries by the Papacy.

|| Inst . S.J., II., 541.

Jesuit Morality and the State 357

It was not till the year 1832 that this sentence, clearly
designating the execution of heretics as an edifying
spectacle for scholars, was removed from the Ratio
Studiorum, not because the Order condemned the prac-
tice, but “ because these words might give offence in
various places : expunguntur haec verba, quia offenderent
in variis regionibus”*

These are the rigid fundamental principles of Jesuit
intolerance, leading at last to bloodshed. A few examples
of sectarian persecution will enable readers to complete
the picture.

Here also I refrain from quoting Jesuit literature of
the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. It presents
vulgarity and filthiness to the full. But neither did people
speak nicely on the opposite side, and the polemic bitter-
ness of Jesuitism may be explained and excused by this.
I shall quote from Jesuits of the present time.

The Jesuit Tilmann Pesch, who died in 1899, was one of
the great literary writers of the German Province. The
Jesuit review, Stimmen aus Maria-Laach ,f to which he
was a very zealous contributor, and the Jesuit Reichmann
extol him in fulsome fashion as scholar, writer, Jesuit
and preacher :

“ This is not the place to estimate his full importance
and greatness, and perhaps the time has not yet arrived
for this.” |

The book, Christ oder Antichrist, Brief e aus Hamburg, |]
is Pesch’s sectarian and polemic masterpiece. It appeared,
according to the favourite Jesuit custom, under the
pseudonym Gottlieb. The bulky volume (955 pages) is
one long vulgar defamation of Protestantism and the
personality of the Reformers, especially Luther :

* Monum. Germ, paed., 16, 503. f 1889, Part 10.

X Reichmann, S.J., Briefe aus Hamburg (Berlin, 1905), 5th edit., preface.

|| Berlin, 1905, 5th edition, Verlag der Germania .

358

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

“ A historical description of Luther must include an illustration
— a summary one, it is true — of the fact that the reforming prin-
ciples of the great man imply not only the overthrow of political
order and of Christian family life, but also the collapse of the entire
moral order. Fortunately, the nations which embraced Lutheranism
had retained enough conservatism from the pre-Reformation period
to preserve them from experiencing all the consequences of Lutheran
teaching. Here, too, it is impossible for me to give all the data
from Luther’s words and works which would demonstrate this
characteristic of the Lutheran work of reformation. I will content
myself with a little, but this little is quite sufficient for the estab-
lishment of facts. I say therefore — and I am not afraid that my
assertion will meet with opposition from any thinking person —
that he who, in the most unequivocal manner, declares all good
works to be sins, who repeatedly clearly and distinctly invites
people to sin, i.e. to every violation of the Divine command and
injury to the conscience, who denies the freedom of the human
will, who blusters at every opportunity against the value of human
reason, who not only fails to oppose superstition (to which, indeed,
many uneducated classes of the people are often unfortunately
only too much inclined), but promotes and adopts it, who teaches
and practises the principle that the end can sanctify bad means, I
say that he who teaches thus and brings forward such teachings
consciously and prodigally may be rightly designated as a rebel
against the entire moral order. Now, according to the most con-
scientious and learned criticism, all this is to be found in Luther’s
writings. And up to the present time no one has been able to
disprove this result of learning. Only one thing is certain, that
Luther also sometimes wrote the very opposite.* Whoever reads
Luther’s -writings will be surprised to find how frequently and
decisively the Reformer brings into prominence the indomitable-
ness of brutal desire in human beings ; men must succumb helplessly
to every attack of sensuality. Neither vows nor marriage bonds
are to be respected. . . . The case appears in another form when
the Reformer continually repeats that all human beings without
exception have succumbed to the sin of unchastity and always and
everywhere used every opportunity to give free rein to all promptings
* Christ oder Antichrist , p. 25 et scq.

Jesuit Morality and the State 359

of sensuality. ... I am convinced that to all who move in circles
animated by Christian life and thought such assertions appear like
declarations from another world, a world of morass and misery.
And the question intrudes itself : What prompted a man who
professed to be a Reformer of the Christian Church, the chosen
tool of the thrice holy God, to a view so low and so degrading
to mankind ? The question provokes a reply which absolutely
annihilates the Reformer, if we note the numerous passages in
Luther’s writings in which he declares in plain words that it is
absolutely impossible to overcome the brutal passions. ... In
Luther’s opinion, man’s vocation does not lie in the sphere of reason
— indeed, reason is in his eyes a 1 fool ’ and the c devil’s mistress ’ —
but in that of animal nature. Man’s merit, like that of every tree
and every animal, lies in being exceedingly fruitful.*

“ In the first place, it is acknowledged to be a fundamental
dogma of the entire Lutheran system that it is impossible for man
to observe any Divine law. . . . It is a necessity, according to
Luther’s teaching, that every person should sin. In the second
place, Luther declares that a Christian may disregard all the Ten
Commandments. . . . Like Calvin, Luther also teaches that God
has condemned some who did not deserve it, and destined many to
condemnation before they were born ; he thus incites people to
sin, and calls forth all their vices ; whatever we do is not done of
our own free will, but through necessity. . . . Finally, in the
third place, the warning against good works follows quite logically,
and the repeated invitation to break the commandments and
commit sins, particularly to sin in order to annoy the devil, j*

“ I have just mentioned the temptations to suicide to which '
Luther, as he himself testifies, was exposed. This reminds me of a
few remonstrances which Pastor Walther addressed to me in his
missive with reference to my account of the last hours of the Reformer
of Wittenberg. I purposely abstained from a more minute exposi-
tion for the simple reason that, according to my conviction, from
the data which are available up to the present time nothing more
can be said about it. Concerning the last moments of his life
(referring to the writing, Wider das Papsttum zn Rom vom Teufel
gestiftet), I said that even Luther’s prayer consisted of curses;

* Christ oder Antichrist , p. 243 et seq. f Ibid. 9 p. 245 et seq.

360

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

Regarding Luther’s death, it only states that his soul was demanded
of him on that night. . . . And, again returning to Luther’s
death, Pastor Walther gives at the close of his missive a peaceful
and extremely edifying picture of the dying Reformer as furnished
by Luther’s partisans, Jonas and Coelius. For my part, I wish
from the bottom of my heart that the poor man had ended a life
racked by awful remorse with sincere repentance and had died a
holy and godly death. But if Walther expects me to accept the
information given by Jonas and Coelius, without further con-
sideration, as the statement of a true event, and see in the impenitent
Reformer a dying saint, I think this is, to put it mildly, asking
rather too much. I, for my part, also possess an account of Luther’s
decease, and one which is essentially different. According to this
narrative, Luther — to put it shortly — had spent the evening at a
cheerful drinking-party, and then feeling sick, was conducted to his
room by Count Mansfield’s servants ; next morning he was found
hanging to the bedpost and dead. The true details were kept
secret from Luther’s friends for obvious reasons, and the rumour
was circulated that the great man died a godly and edifying death.
For my own part, I attach no importance to this narrative. But
what would Pastor Walther say if I expected him to accept this
report as the only one corresponding with the truth ? Not only
he, but his liberal colleagues also, would reject such a demand with
righteous indignation. And yet, if Luther, in an evil moment
through weariness of life, had given way to the promptings of suicide
which he had himself admitted, this would, from the liberal Pro-
testant point of view, by no means be regarded as so terrible.
Suicide is quite compatible with the modern ideal of life.”*

* P. 357 et seq. The Jesuit Reichmann, who has re-edited Pesch’s violent book,
remarks at this point that the untenability of the account of Luther’s suicide has
been proved “ meanwhile.” But he quietly permits the infamous calumny to remain
in the text. For it has the desired effect on the readers in spite of the proof,
and this is the more certain as none of the proofs are given. It is evident from
the following that Pesch wished to implant the belief in Luther’s suicide in the
historical consciousness of the Catholic people: Once when the Sub-Agent of
the Cologne priestly seminary. Dr. Pingsmann, paid me a visit at Blyenbeck,
I was walking in the garden with him and Pesch. The latter told us that he had
proofs of Luther’s suicide ; though not absolutely decisive, that did not matter ;
if rightly presented, the effect on the people would still be to make them believe
the fact. Some years later, as we observe, he did M present them rightly.”

Jesuit Morality and the State 361

This huge volume, full of slander and provocation,
which on account of its high price could not attain
to a wide circulation, did not suffice Pesch and the
German Province, of which Pesch was, of course, the
instrument. The poison of sectarian strife must pene-
trate to the masses. Accordingly the Jesuit Pesch and
the German Province of the Order originated an under-
taking, existing to this day, which is systematically
occupied in poisoning the wells and stirring up denomina-
tional hatred at a low price — the Flugschriften zur Welir
und Lehr , published at Berlin by the Germania .

Ever since the appearance in the year 1890 of the first
of these pamphlets with the title Luther and Marriage ,
by Gottlieb (pseudonym for the Jesuit Pesch), thousands
of these little “ green leaflets ” have appeared year after
year, at 12 pfennigs (Ijd.) a piece, and been scattered
broadcast among the Catholics of Germany. Almost all
are attuned to a note of violent and spiteful attack on
Protestantism. The style is coarse. Here is an instance :

“ 'When the chieftain of the Evangelical Alliance goes on the
warpath it is in the eyes of his peoples an event which resounds
throughout Europe ; the Ultramontanes are seized with panic,
and they feel just exactly as in the past the American backs woods-
men must have felt at the news that the Indian chieftain Two-
Strikes or Sitting Bull was dancing the war-dance and sharpening
his scalping-knife. . . . Doubtless these tactics have advantages
which must not be underrated. In the first place all the geese in
the Evangelical Alliance will stretch out their necks and break
out in a cackle of admiration ; what a hero is our Willibald (Pro-
fessor Dr. Beyschlag) ! His rest and recreation after the labours
of the term and the festivities in honour of his seventieth birthday
consist in the moral annihilation of a Roman Bishop and as an
interlude breaking the bones of the whole Catholic Church. And
how gracefully he does it ! He plays with poor Dr. Korum like a
cat with a mouse ! ”*

* Die Segnungen der Reformation ,'p. 66.

362 Fourteen Years a Jesuit

And the coarse style is matched by the contents :

“ Every moral licence, every lapse of morality, in Catholicism
signifies a perversion, a falling away from Catholic principles. But
if once we accept the Protestant principle of 4 evangelical freedom 5
it is only thanks to a most lucky lack of logic if the most serious
consequences do not result in the social and moral domain. In the
French Revolution French excitability with iron consistency
deduced the consequences from the principles of the Reformation.
Alas ) for us, if German thoroughness should enter on such paths !
But what did the Protestants do ? They annihilated the three
Gospel counsels. ... To the husband they said : 4 The claims
of passion are no more bound to give way before the sanctity of
the marriage vow than before the vow of chastity.’ They whispered
into the ears of all men : 4 The animal instinct is untamable and
unlimited, and justified in all its claims.’ ... All moral excesses,
which according to the reports of the societies for promoting morals
in all our large Protestant towns are threatening the ruin of the
German nation, are absolutely permissible according to the prin-
ciple, the immediate consequences of which were described by
Luther.*

44 There is perhaps no other dogma to which Luther remained
so faithful during the long period of his reforming activity as this :
To have two or more wives is good, but it is better and more advisable
to be content with one ; this was his philosophy of life in youth
and age, which he preached by word of mouth and in writing, at
table and in the lecture hall, only not from the pulpit, and to which
he never proved unfaithful even in evil days in spite of all attacks.

. . . The only logical conclusion to be drawn from the secret
Gospel of Luther, Bucer, Melanchthon and other Fathers of Pro-
testantism is that every Protestant is to have as many wives as
he pleases, either by dispensation of his consistory or confessor.
If we also consider that according to the common Christian and
Protestant doctrine men and women have the same rights and duties
it follows that a Protestant woman too has the right to have as
many husbands as she pleases. This would be logical, but at the

* Leaflet No. 80, Professor Beyschlag’s Anklagen gegen den Bischof von Trier y
pp. 1, 27.

Jesuit Morality and the State 363

same time a very bad thing. The fact cannot be altered even
by Luther’s maxim : ‘ Sin boldly and believe even more boldly. 5
Another logical consequence of tbe dogma of universal priesthood
and Luther’s clear pronouncements is that every Protestant can
supply his own dispensations and spiritual counsel, so long as he
can excuse it before his own conscience and the Bible. Thus we
should by perfectly logical means have reached the standpoint of
the Berlin roues and prostitutes. Now let some one say that these
are not bad Protestants ! Is not every logical Protestant necessarily
a bad Protestant ? ”*

The spiteful spirit which pervades the whole of these
Flugschriften is very clearly expressed in the confession
openly set down in leaflet 51-52 :

“ It is useless to say that we must not offend the convictions
of those who hold a different faith. In our view this is only a
trick of the devil’s, mere ill-applied courtesy and consideration.
Such reserve neither serves the cause of truth nor the true welfare
of our Protestant brethren.”!

PRACTICAL APPLICATION OF JESUIT MORALITY

The many thousand Jesuit confessionals and the
many millions of penitents who confide their souls to
Jesuit guidance, are the field where Jesuit morality is
practically developed. It is a domain of which, although
I know it intimately, since I was myself at work on it,
I can obviously not speak. I will however quote some
historical instances.

Le Bret, in his Magazin , gives an extract from a book

* Katholische und Protcstantische Sittlichkeit , pp. 27 ci ecq.

■f P. 86. Besides the Jesuit Tillmann Pesch, the originator of the whole
undertaking, the Jesuits chiefly occupied, in the composition of leaflets were, as
long as I remained in the Order, Reichmann and von Hammerstein. As a rule
they, like Pesch, wrote anonymously or pseudonymously. Further details about
the Flugschriften may be found in my pamphlet Die deutschen Jcsuiten der Gegen •
wart und der Iconfessionelle Friede (Berlin : A. Kaaek).

364

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

entitled Difesa del giudizio formato dalla Santa Sede
Apostolica :

“ When in the year 1624 the Venetian fleet conquered Scio,
the victorious General, Antonio Zeno, gave orders that all the
Turks should be driven out of the island. About three hundred
renegades, whom everyone knew to be Mohammedans, because they
had openly professed this religion, took refuge in a mosque and
begged for mercy on the ground that they were Christians. The
General, surprised, sent Father Carlini, a Dominican, at that time
Vicar-General in the Levant, but now Archbishop of Napoli di
Romania, to question them about their religion. They cried aloud
that they were really Christians* They were for the most part
women, who in order to be able to marry Turks, had openly adopted
the Mohammedan religion. But having repented their fault they
solemnly recanted before the Jesuits, and were permitted by them
to continue openly to profess the Mohammedan religion, go to the
mosques, and take part in Mohammedan observances, while the
Jesuits administered the sacraments to them in secret. When
this was reported to the General, he caused the women to be con-
fronted by the Jesuits to whom they had referred, especially Father
Lumaca, who had taken the chief part in instructing them. And,
in fact, the Jesuits did recognise the greater part of the women
as their penitents. These simple people were accordingly pardoned.
But a severe reproof was administered to their instructors for not
remembering Christ’s saying, ‘ He who denies Me before men,
him shall I also deny before My heavenly Father.’ I do not appeal
to dead witnesses : the worthy prelate of Napoli di Romania, who
transacted this matter by public command, is still alive, and can
testify of it to any one who desires. Other witnesses, too, are the
Archbishop of Corinth, Bernardino Cordenos, the Archbishop’s
secretary, Antonin Gavazzi, Prior of the Monastery of SS.
Giovanni e Paolo at Venice, the Dominican Maria Ferro and
Angelus Bevilacqua at Venice, who all testify on oath to the
truth of these events.

“ When in 1606 Paul V. was at war with Venice, and the Jesuits,
on account of their advocacy of the Pope, were driven out of Venice,
they tried by every possible means to injure the ‘ heretical 9 Republic.;

Jesuit Morality and the State 365

They stole disguised into Venetian territory, and advised the
women to refuse to perform their conjugal duties, and the sons
to deny obedience to their fathers until the Republic had given
way. At Constantinople they stirred up the Turks to war against
Venice.”*

Louis Sotelo, a Franciscan and Bishop, who was burnt
at Foco in Japan, in August, 1624 , on account of his
faith, wrote in January of the same year from his prison
at Omura a letter to Pope Urban VIII., which contains
the bitterest reproaches against the Jesuits :

“ Although he had been sent from Rome to Japan as Bishop,
they had tried to hinder his mission ; owing to their fault the
Church in Japan was in a deplorable condition, because they would
allow no other priests or members of orders but themselves to work
there, though the thirty Jesuits could not suffice for the whole
of the large territory. They circulated slanders about other mis-
sionaries, and forbade the believers to admit them into their homes,
although this was a season of persecution. The Jesuits did all in
their power to destroy the effect of such testimony. It seemed
to them best to deny the truth and genuineness of the letter, and
they quoted the statement of a certain John Cervicos as to the
inaccuracy of the facts there stated, as well as of Fra Peter Baptista,
who maintains that the signature was forged and that not only
was it not the hand of his colleague, Fra Louis Sotelo, but did not
even resemble it. Unfortunately, however, Dr. Cervicos and Fra
Peter Baptista were still alive, and both protested against this
statement attributed to them by the Jesuits. One of them proved
n writing and swore before a notary and witnesses on October 10,
1628, that the words put in his mouth by the Society [of Jesus]
were shameful lies, and the other revoked the doubts which he
had at first expressed as to the signature of Fra Louis, and insisted
that, after a more careful examination, he believed it to be genuine,
and also believed that of the holy martyr to be authentic and
worthy of the writer,”]*

* From letters of Paolo Sarpi in Le Bret, Magazin , I., 427 ci scq ., and III., 542.

t Gioberti, II Gesuiia Modcrno .

366

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

In 1759 the Jesuit Mamachi set the boys in one of the
classes of the Jesuit College at Toulouse a composition
on this subject :

“ Heroes at times commit crimes which are favoured
by fortune. A fortunate crime ceases to be a crime. A
man whom France now designates by the shameful name
of robber will be styled an Alexander if he is favoured by
fortune.”*

Anselm Feuerbach, quoting from the documents,
reports the confession of a Catholic priest, Franz Riem-
bauer, who on November 2, 1807, at Ober-Lauterbach, in
Bavaria, murdered his former cook in the most cruel
manner. She had borne him a child, and was threatening
to denounce him :

“ When I met the Eichstadt woman at Ratisbon [so
Riembauer confessed in November, 1817, to the examining
judge at Landshut] she declared her intention of never leaving
me. . . . My honour, my position, my public credit, everything
that was of necessity dear and sacred to me, was threatened by the
woman’s arrival at Ober-Lauterbach. I thought to myself : What
shall I do if she comes after all ? Then I remembered the principle
laid down by Father Benedict Stattler [a Jesuit] in his Ethica
Christiana, which permits the taking of another’s life if there is
no other way of saving our own honour and good name ; for honour
is a greater good than life, and we have the same right of defence
against a person who threatens our honour as against a robber.
On considering this principle, which Professor Stattler had also
formerly expounded to us young theologians in the course of his
instruction, I decided that it applied to my case and accepted it
as a dictamen practicum.f I said to myself : My honour will be

* From Reusch, Beitrage , pp. 56, 57.

t The principle laid dowm by the Jesuit Stattler, which fortified the Pastor
Riembauer in committing the murder, runs thus : “ It is permissible to avert a
grievous disgrace by killing the unjust adversary, if no other means are available ;
if the disgrace has already been incurred, it is not permissible to avenge it by
murder, unless there is no other way of making him amend, while there is great

Jesuit Morality and the State 367

ruined by this wicked person if she comes to Lauterbach and carries
out her threats ; I shall be removed by the Consistory, shall forfeit
my property, and gain an ill name throughout the diocese. Although
even at that time I meditated on Stattler’s principle and thought
it applicable to my case, it was then no more than an idea and I
had not yet considered the mode of execution.”*

Such are the ethics and morals, the toleration,
religious equality and denominational amity taught, both
theoretically and practically, in the course of Moral
Theology, which the young Jesuit must attend for two
years.

My professors of Moral Theology were the Jesuits
Frins (afterwards counsellor to the Centre leader Windt-
horst) and Stentrup. Frins gave expression to his opinion
of Protestant morality by emphatically declaring his
conviction that every young Protestant girl was morally
ruined by the age of fifteen. Another of his utterances
was that he could not understand how a married couple
could look each other in the face without blushing.
Stentrup taught Moral Theology in the narrowest sense
of past ages. Progress, civilisation, and the modern
state were an abomination to him.

The discussion of Conscience Cases which takes place
in all the Houses of the Order once a fortnight, in the
presence of all the Fathers and also the Superiors, gives
an actuality to Moral Theology during the whole of a
Jesuit’s life ; and it is intended to supply a standard for
his duties as spiritual director. At Exaeten, the only
house in which I was stationed for any length of time

danger that he will renew the accusation. ... A grievous calumny may not
as such be averted by the previous murder of the calumniator, unless it is clearly
oreseen that the unjust calumniator will find credence for his calumny, and there
is also no other means of warding off the calumny and re-establishing his injured
honour ” ( Ethica Christiana communis , III. (3), 1889-1893).

* Aktenmassige Darstdlung merkwiirdiger Verbrechen (Giessen, 1829), II., 86
et seg . .

368

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

after the end of my scholastic studies, the Conscience
Cases were under the direction of Lehmkuhl, some of
whose principles I have already quoted. Lehmkuhl, the
classic authority in the domain of Moral Theology, is one
of the most distinctive types of Jesuitism in the bad sense
of the word that I have ever met. Not in the sense of
being himself bad ; on the contrary, he took the greatest
pains to lead a pious and virtuous life in the Jesuit
acceptation of these terms. But for that very reason
the Jesuit system had taken complete possession of him ;
the revaluation of moral and ethical conceptions which it
contains was incorporated in him.

Another characteristic of Jesuit Moral Theology
deserves emphasis. Lehmkuhl, the great authority on
Moral Theology, who had a hundred solutions at hand
for every case, and in the two volumes of his work on
Moral Theology dissects virtue, sin and temptation anato-
mically into their final components, was in his own person
helpless in face of sin and temptation. He was literally
devoured by scruples, and afraid at every step of offending
God ; he confessed, sometimes more than once, every
day. At the same time he defended, with a perfectly
calm mind, all the enormities which have been discussed
in the domain of mental restriction.

Nowhere is the saying of straining at a gnat and
swallowing a camel more applicable than in the case of
Jesuit morality.

CHAPTER, XXVI

EXAETEN*

The Excimen rigorosum concluded my scholastic training.
Usually this is immediately followed by the Tertiate, the
third year of probation ( tertius annus probationis), which
forms the outward conclusion of the ascetic training.
I was not, however, sent direct to the Tertiate, but first
to Exaeten as a Scriptor.

Nine years had gone by since I entered Exaeten as a
postulant, seven since I had left it to begin my scholas-
ticate.

During this time the house had undergone a complete
transformation. The novitiate had been transferred from
there to Blyenbeck, and the philosophate from Blyen-
beck to Exaeten. The German Province had also col-
lected most of its writers there, and finally Exaeten had
become the headquarters for the publication of the two
periodicals so widely read in Germany, Stimmen aus Maria-
Laach and Die Katholischen Missionen.

These thoroughgoing internal changes had resulted
in considerable external alterations : A stately college,
with roomy corridors, libraries, and a large and splendid

* On two occasions, apart from my novitiate, I was stationed at Exaeten :
immediately after the conclusion of my studies, 18S7-S, and after my Tertiate,
1889-92. I shall condense the most important events of these two sojourns in
one chapter, if only because in my lack of written notes I am unable, after the
lapse of twenty-three years, to state exactly from memory which belonged to the
first and which to the second sojourn.

Y

369

37° Fourteen Years a Jesuit

chapel, had been added to the old, confined Novitiate
House ( Domus Probationis).

If Exaeten appeared to me new and strange, I, too,
entered it as a newcomer and a stranger. Indeed, the
transformation which the birthplace of my Jesuit life had
undergone was but a weak reflection of the change that
had taken place in me.

Full of belief in the Catholic Church, and therefore full
of confidence in the Jesuit Order on which she set so great a
value, I had crossed the threshold of Exaeten nine years
before. Not with youthful lightheartedness — it was only
with violent and heavy struggles that I attained the reso-
lution to leave the world and to serve God in poverty,
chastity and obedience as a disciple of the Society of
Jesus. But a firm belief in the truth of that which had
been brought to maturity in me through the atmosphere
of my home and the powerful example of an honoured
father and a beloved mother, had induced me, not to silence
my nature and my deepest individual feelings — that would
have been impossible — but at any rate to trample them
down, and with the sword of religious idealism in one
hand, I had won my way to the entrance of the Order,
hoping, with the trowel of prayer and mortification in the
other, to erect the tower of Christian perfection which from
my earliest childhood had been set before me, through
centuries of traditional vision, as a shining sanctuary.

But how had the glory of this tower faded away ! Its
very foundations were shaken when, after the completion
of almost a decade in the Order, I again entered the place
where with eager, never-resting effort I had first put in
my spade in the endeavour to build it.

The will of the Superior had designated me as a writer
(scriptor). In the first place, I was to assist with the
editing of the papers Stimmen aus Maria-Laach and Die
Katholischen Missionen. The chief editor of these periodi-

Exaeten

371

cals was the Jesuit Fall, a Swiss, who also presided over
the whole college as Vice-Rector, representing the Rector,
Hermes, who had fallen ill, and soon afterwards died.

That Fall became my superior in a twofold capacity
was both fortunate and unfortunate for me. Fortunate,
because in him I found a man who, in spite of two decades
of Jesuit training — for Fiili had entered the Order very
young, straight from the Jesuit School at Feldkirch — had
preserved his humanity, who himself could speak a candid
word, and understand one when spoken by others ; unfor-
tunate, because this very characteristic of his postponed
the process of development which was driving me to burst
the bonds of the Order, and so hindered my taking the
final step. Fah also boasted in a strong degree what I
was already beginning to lack : belief in the Church and
its authority as directing the Jesuit Order. True, he once
said to me in an hour of sadness, when in distress at being
suddenly transferred from Berlin to Brazil :

“ If I did not believe in the divinity of the Church which
has given its sanction to the Jesuit Order, I should long
ago have left it, and should not submit to such harsh
commands.”

This remark set me thinking. It served me as a
support when the divinity of the Church fell in ruins before
me, long after I had recognised that the excellence of the
Order was a mere delusion.

Among Jesuits who have attained a literary reputation,
my more immediate comrades ( Socii )* at Exaeten were
Langhorst, Baumgartner, Lehmkuhl, Beissel, Spillman,
Frick, Tillmann Pesch, Cathrein, Epping, Dressel, Dreves,f
Pachtler, and Pfiilf.

* Socialism may boast that it has given its members the same official designa-
tion : comrades, Socii, as the Jesuits have used for several centuries.

t Guido Maria Breves, the celebrated hyinnologist, was the son of the poet
Lebrecht Breves, a convert to Catholicism. Breves, my fellow-pupil at Feldkirch,
was an original man of singular gifts. In the autumn of 1909 I accidentally read

372

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

With none of these did I enter into any close relation.
Indeed, the rule of the Order does not tolerate such inti-
macy, but I had a good deal of intercourse with all of them
during our daily recreation and our walks. None of them,
with the exception of Baumgartner, was gifted beyond the
average ; all, even Baumgartner, had completely lost their
individuality in the sense of intellectual originality. The
knowledge of some of them was varied, but even this
variety was levelled away by the formal uniformity of
training and purpose.

During my residence at Exaeten I was drawn towards
the Provincial of the German Province, the Jesuit Ratgeb —
or rather he was drawn towards me. Evidently he desired
to train me to higher things.

The Jesuit Order knows exceedingly well how to ex-
ploit advantages of birth, family relations, and the like ;
its contempt for such worldly things is a mere pretence. It
knows very well how great a value such things have for
its work among mankind. This work, and nothing else,
is concealed under the motto of the Order Omnia ad
majorem Dei gloriam.

"When such outward advantages are combined in any
individual with “ virtue which exceeds mediocrity ” and
“ knowledge sufficient for teaching philosophy and theo-
logy satisfactorily,” this individual is specially adapted to
render great services to the Society of Jesus. And such
an individual was I for a long time in the eyes of my
Superior. For many years, during the many “ State-
ments of Conscience ” which I had to make to my Superior,
I was told that I was making good progress and should
become a very useful tool for the service of God. When

in a South German paper that he had died as a secular priest in the neighbourhood
of Munich — he must, therefore, have left the Jesuit Order. With his strong
individuality he never really belonged there. His bigoted mother, who was body
and soul under Jesuit dominion, and lived at Feldkirch as a widow till her death,
induced him to enter the Order — her fortune probably went the same way.

Exaeten

373

my scholastic training was concluded, and a year after-
wards my ascetic training also, this general and theoretic
recognition of my utility took a distinct and particular
direction, and it was the Jesuit Ratgeb who gave it this
form, through special marks of confidence. One of these,
my mission to Berlin, will be treated in the next chapter.
Others may be mentioned here.

In regular long conversations Ratgeb instructed me
in the method of government of the Jesuit Order. Some-
times he came to my room for this purpose, on other
occasions he let me come to him. They were informal
discussions in which many subjects were treated which,
however, all clearly had the aim of initiating me in the
true nature of Jesuitism. For a long time — before the
final collapse of my Catholic religious edifice — I had been
a docile pupil, i.e. I followed the expositions of my Pro-
vincial with zeal and interest ; but then I became so
indocile that the confidential conversations ended some-
what abruptly, and with a sharp discord. From that
time the Jesuit Ratgeb disliked me as much as he had
formerly favoured me. Two of these notes of discord
may be emphasised:

Our conversation had turned on the relation of the Jesuit
Order to the Papacy since the restoration of the Order by
Pius VII. in the year 1814. With one exception, Ratgeb
pronounced a favourable judgment on the successors of Pius
VII., Leo XII., Pius VIII., Gregory XVI., Pius IX., and
Leo XIII., i.e. he regarded them as friends to the Order —
for a true Jesuit has no other standard of judging matters
of ecclesiastical or secular history and personalities than
that of friendship or opposition to the Order. The
exception was Leo XII. Why this Pope was supposed
not to have been well disposed to the Jesuits I could not
clearly understand from Ratgeb’s utterances, but two
things were startlingly clear : the hatred with which the

374

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

influential Jesuit judged the anti- Jesuit Pope, and the
calm determination with which he expressed the necessity
of getting rid of such opponents. Ratgeb’s words, which
were indelibly impressed on my memory, were these :
“ Do you think that it is impossible to get rid of Popes
who oppose the interests of the Order ? ”

I could only understand his words in one sense, and
my terror at their meaning must have been expressed in
my face, for after a penetrating look into my eyes, Ratgeb
suddenly passed on to a different subject.* I am thoroughly
aware of what I am writing here ; but the words I heard,
and the impression they made upon me, are facts.

Here is a second note of discord : Ratgeb had been
enlarging on the influence of the Order at royal courts
and on prominent persons ; he let drop the names of the
Jesuits Lamormaini, Vervaux, La Chaise, and others.
There was something peculiarly observant in his glance as
he said to me :

“ Will you accept the post of tutor to the sons of the
Austrian Ambassador in Paris ? ”f

Abruptly I answered, “ No,” and abruptly I was
dismissed by the Provincial. That was the end of our
intimate conversations. I had a feeling that the offer of
this post was a test. Ratgeb, who was no longer quite
sure of me, wanted to know whether I was suited for
higher things. How matters really stood with me at
that time — that the Jesuit system had become a horror
to me, and the Catholic Church a mere ruin, that my
gaze and will were fixed on a separation from both — of
course he could not guess.

In my place another Jesuit received the post of tutor

* Leo XII., as a matter of fact, died suddenly after only three days’ illness, on
February 10th, 1829. Cf. Wiseman, Recollections of the Last Four Popes.

| The Austrian Ambassador in Paris was Count Hoyos Sprinzenstein, whose
three sons at that time were between eleven and fourteen years of age ; one of
them is now Secretary to the Legation at the Austrian Embassy in Berlin.

Exaeten

375

refused by me, which, of course, was made to serve the
political influence of the Order.

Here is another proof of confidence. In the summer
of 1889 the Provincial Ratgeb sent me with the Jesuit
Tilmann Pesch to Mayence, to take part in a political
conference to be held there in the house of a Bishop, Dr.
Haffner.

There were present : Windthorst, Prince Lowenstein
(now a Dominican), the Bishops of Mayence and Treves (Dr.
Korum), the chief editor of the Germania, Dr. Marcour, the
deputies Lieber and Racke (who was murdered at Christmas,
1908, by his own son) ; my uncle, Baron Felix von Loe ;
and three Jesuits, I, Tilmann Pesch and Frins (the future
legal adviser of Windthorst in Berlin). A great social-
political and “ apologetic ” undertaking was to be founded.
The exchange of opinions was very lively. Windthorst,
a cunning politician, and legal assistant to the Protestant
Duke of Cumberland, represented the milder tendency
towards persons of a different faith. Bishop Korum of
Treves and the Jesuit Pesch were in favour of sharp and
extreme measures, and let fall characteristic remarks.
Thus, for instance, when Professor Dr. Beyschlag of Halle
and his activity against the Roman Church were under
discussion, Pesch asked : “ Is there no means of attacking
him in his private life ? ” Very typical of ultramontane
Jesuit fighting methods ! The discussion, which led to no
definite result, lasted many hours. But for all that, there
in Mayence the idea of a fighting denominational organi-
sation which should help to win members for the Centre
Party took shape, and was finally realised in the “ National
Union for Catholic Germany.” And the Jesuit Pesch who,
in spite of the great assistance of Korum, Bishop of Treves,
had not succeeded, owing to the opposition of Windthorst
in calling into being an “ apologetic ” Union of Agitation,
soon afterwards began on his own account to stir up

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

3 7 6

denominational hatred in his Flugschriften zur Welir und
Lehr. In this he was most willingly supported by the
Berlin paper Germania, which undertook the publication
of the venomous review, and carries it on to the present
day. The then business manager of the Germania,
who called himself “ Director,” a certain Max Muschik,
who, unless I am mistaken, soon afterwards had to make
himself scarce on account of his “ directorial ” activity,
also took part in the Conference.

As yet I have said nothing about the vita communis
in the Order — the manner of our daily common life. I
do not refer to the external arrangements, which found
expression in the daily routine, but rather to its inner
character, the tone of the intercourse, the relation of the
individuals to one another, and so forth.

Since a Jesuit’s day contains only two periods of
recreation, an hour after dinner and another after supper,
and as with few exceptions walks take place only twice
a week, while at other times the rule prescribes silence
for the whole of the day, and visits in different rooms
are only allowed by special permission of the Superior,
there is but little opportunity for personal social inter-
course and for the exercise of the virtues — natural and
“ supernatural ” — which it calls forth.

In general, it may be said that the tone in these common
recreations was good and cheerful. Serious disagreements,
and marked unpleasantness and enmities, were exceptional.
All tried to accommodate themselves to one another.
Still, the virtues which manifest themselves in the common
life of the Jesuits are in no respect greater than those
manifested in any good family life. On the contrary,
they are far less, for the Jesuit has only twice a day,
for a short time, the opportunity of exercising these
virtues — amiability, pleasantness, adaptability, self -
sacrifice and unselfishness — while in a well-ordered family

Exaeten

377

they have to be exercised all day long, from morning till
night. But in one respect the life in the Jesuit and other
Orders is exactly on a par with the secular life so greatly
despised by the members of the Order. Human weak-
nesses, such as envy, dislike and friction, are to be found
here as there.

During my membership of the Order I only witnessed
one case of excess, or rather its consequences, during the
recreation horns. A Jesuit returned from one of his
frequent excursions in a state of considerable intoxication,
and as the evening recreation happened to be in progress,
he shared in it in a more than “ animated ” condition. It
was a most unpleasant scene, the more unpleasant since
the person in question, even when sober, was a noisy
chatterbox. I never heard that this serious excess on
his part was reprimanded by the Superior, as should
certainly have been done. I have not mentioned this
circumstance in order to throw stones at the Order or
the particular Jesuit, but only to prove the evident fact
that the sanctity of the life in the Order does not exclude
considerable excesses. This Jesuit was one of the most
distinguished writers of the German Province.

What does not the ordinary Catholic layman behold
in the Jesuit Order — and indeed in all Orders ! And how
very different is the reality within their walls !

They — by “ they ” I mean Catholic circles who see in
the Order “ the highest state of Christian perfection ” —
form most exaggerated conceptions of the perfection of
its members. In reality they are, and remain, human
beings. Only the strict seclusion which they have erected
as a wall between themselves and the rest of the world,
enables them to produce the impression of something
superhuman and specially holy. The virtue of the members
of an Order which is surrounded and guarded by hundreds
of rules and fences, which knows itself watched at every

378

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

step by Argus eyes, and thus has scarcely an opportunity
for stumbling and falling, is on that very account far less
genuine and robust than the virtue of the man of the
world who, in the midstream of life and its temptations,
has to preserve it by fighting.

The life of men and women in Orders is easy and
pleasant when once the first conflict caused by the parting
from family and home is passed, and for many this parting
does not even occasion a conflict.

While the Christian of “ lower grade,” the “ man of
the world,” as he is contemptuously called by the members
of the Order, is consumed with anxiety as to the sustenance
of himself and his family, the men and women in Orders
live a life of ease ; everywhere their house is built, their
table spread, their bed prepared* ; and the quaint irony of
the circumstances consists in this — that their house, table,
and bed are prepared for them by the charitable offerings
of the men of the world who “ stand far below them in
perfection,” and are troubled by all the cares of life.

If only the laity knew the real state of things as regards
the convents and their inmates, then no reform by the
spiritual authority, nor restrictive legislation by the
temporal, would be needed to call forth a truly Christian
evangelical perfection in the numerous settlements of the
Order, or to bring the parasitical existence of so many
hundreds of them to a well-deserved end.

But there is one really dark side to the Jesuit common

life.

The system of supervision and espionage which per-
meates the Order, the mutual denunciation declared to be
a rule and duty, make innocent intercourse and comrade-
ship and friendship absolutely impossible. This last,

* From this freedom from care and anxiety I must exempt the nursing orders.
They impose severe duties in hospitals and asylums on their members, and often
demand heroic sacrifices from them. But here too we may say that countless
secular male and female nurses do the same.

Exaeten

379

indeed, is expressly forbidden. One Jesuit does not show
himself to his fellow- Jesuit as he is, but rather as he would
like to appear. He has no friend to whom he may freely
open his heart. Thus members of the Jesuit Order never
approach one another closely, and therefore Jesuit common
life knows nothing of intimacy, in which consist the savour
and sweetness, the refreshment and strength, of human
intercourse.

Discipline prevails in the Jesuit Order, in spite of all
human failings and the very comfortable life led there.
This discipline is above all manifest in the promptitude
with which a Jesuit lets himself be sent hither and thither
— literally from one end of the earth to another, sometimes
from one day to another. Here readiness for sacrifice
and self-denial are displayed in an amazing fashion ; every
difficulty is overcome, health and life are sacrificed without
the slightest demur. Still, even here there is a “ but ” ;
I do not wish in any way to minimise the undeniable
heroism of the Jesuits, but has not every profession its
self-sacrificing and courageous heroes ? Are there not
“ martyrs of science ” as there are martyrs of faith, and
have not hundreds and thousands of soldiers spilt their
heart’s blood as readily for the flag as a missionary for
the Cross ? If all those are to be canonised and beatified
who have held high their ideals in a life of renunciation
and sacrifice, or who have sealed with their blood their
endeavours and convictions, there would not be room
in the world for the necessary altars, on which would
stand the images of men and women of all professions,
among them hundreds and thousands of such as were not
Christians at all, who believed neither in God nor a future
life. Therefore, with all due recognition of the heroism
shown by Jesuits, and other religious orders too, the rest
of the world, believers and unbelievers alike, may say to
them, “ We too have our heroes.”

380 Fourteen Years a Jesuit

It is owing to the narrow education of Catholics that
they know scarcely any martyrs and saints except their
own ; indeed, they object to the expression “ martyrs
of science.” This was my case too for several decades ;
but when, in later years, I saw before me the heroism of
humanity, independent of religion and creed, in heroic
men and women, when I observed the numbers of those
who had sacrificed themselves for purely human objects
and aims, then the haloes around the ecclesiastical saints
and martyrs began to pale, and from thence forward I
saw in them only men who, like many thousands of others,
had sacrificed themselves for their ideals. The com-
prehension of this truth helped me greatly in my separation
from the Church and the Order.

Let us, then, allow the Jesuit Order its heroism, but
let us give it the place that it deserves, side by side with
the millions of heroic men and women of all professions,
all nations, all religions, and even of no religion.

Besides my literary labours, of which I shall have to
speak later, I also undertook pastoral work at Exaeten —
or, rather, from this place as a centre. In this respect,
too, I enjoyed the special confidence of my Superiors.
Confession, preaching, giving Exercises, missions, con-
ferences (learned and religious discourse), in short, the
whole domain of Jesuit spiritual direction was open to
me.

I will give some details. Missions (popular missions)
are exercises for the masses. Their momentary but very
transitory effect on the people is immense, and in par-
ticular the confessionals are besieged. I took part in
an unusually large mission at Gelsenkirchen in 1889 or
1890. Fourteen Jesuits were literally occupied day and
night; from early morning — four o’clock — till eleven or
twelve at night, they heard confessions. The whole town

Exaeten

381

was in a state of feverish excitement. This religious fever
and nervous excitement are special characteristics of a
mission. That they also have good effects cannot be
denied, but the manner in which these are produced is
absolutely opposed to the simple religious spirit of the
Gospel. Everything is suggestion — there is no inward
and personal contemplation. Externals prevail.

A typical example of the external character of the
spiritual direction peculiar to Jesuits is related quite
ingenuously by the Jesuit Rist.*

In a report to his Superiors the Jesuit Sarrazin there
relates how, when at Erfurt in the winter of 1870-71, he
prepared a French prisoner for death :

“ All admonitions had been in vain. At last the
Jesuit sent word to the sick man, through the Sisters of
Mercy, that by acting thus he was providing for himself
a funeral without the attendance of a priest.

“ ‘ What ! A priest would not then follow my corpse ? ’

“ ‘ Certainly not ; none would be allowed to accom-
pany you.’

“ ‘ Well, then, you may go quickly and fetch the
priest.’

“ On the very same evening he received the Last
Sacraments, and was thus prepared for death, which
followed a few days afterwards.”

Such conversions, through purely external means such
as the absence of a priest at a funeral, are in complete
accord with Jesuit moral teaching, as expounded, for
instance, by the Jesuits Le Roux and Slaughter :

“ Ivenin thinks that it results from our teaching that
a man who has lived a godless life for forty years can,
by mere ‘ attrition ’ (penitence through fear of eternal
punishment) receive the sacramental absolution, and

* Die deutschen Jesuiten auf den ScMachtJ elder n und in den Lazaretten , 1866
und 1870 - 71 .

382

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

immediately afterwards lose his reason through a fatal
illness, and yet have a right to everlasting salvation, even
though he never loved God, not even at the end of his
life. To this we unconditionally assent.”*

“ It may happen that a man attains salvation who
has often transgressed all God’s commands, and has never
fulfilled his first command of love — that is, if he receives
the Sacrament with mere attrition, and dies immediately
afterwards.”f

The contrast between Christianity and Jesuitism can
scarcely be more clearly demonstrated. But it is com-
prehensible that such practice and theory produce great
spiritual results, the duration of which is, however, in
proportion to the crumbling nature of its foundation.

Thus, as in the case of the Exercises, sermons on
death, the judgment and hell are the real centres of gravity
of the missions. By these the hearers are belaboured
most effectively, and converted through fear.

For the spirit in which the missions are often con-
ducted, a passage from a letter by the Jesuit Johannes
Gastel, of March 25 , 1685 , from the South American
Mission, is characteristic : —

“ With a view to avenging the death of the above-
mentioned Fathers [three Jesuits had been murdered by
the Caribs, near the Orinoco], fifty Portuguese soldiers
and four hundred Indian bowmen will soon be sent out to
kill as many of the Caribs as possible. There is no better
method for subduing the savagery of barbaric nations
than to drive out tyranny with tyranny, and to inspire
fear, so that they may not attempt anything similar in
future.”!

The Jesuit Aloysius Pfeil also relates a circumstance

* Le Roux, S.J.

f Slaughter, S.J. Quoted by Bollinger -Reusch, I., 80.

t From the Jesuit papers in the State Archives. Friedrich, Beitrage, p. 38.

Exaeten 383

which reveals a similar lack of the religious and Christian
conception of the missionary vocation.

“ At that time Portuguese and Indian troops were sent
out from San Luiz de Potosi to subdue the tribe of the
Tramambases, who inhabit the interior of Maragnon, to
Christ and the King of Portugal, if they did not surrender
of their own free will. The faithful soldiers who marched
into battle were accompanied by Fr. Peter Luiz.”*

That the Jesuit missions were conducted in the same
spirit, as regards heretics, is a matter of course, but it is
also strikingly demonstrated by a letter from the Jesuit
Bobadilla, one of the first comrades of Ignatius Loyola,
to the Roman King Ferdinand : —

“ But Bobadilla had never been so inwardly glad and
happy as when he beheld the Spanish and Italian cavalry
who had come to Germany for the Smalkaldic war, for these
were the true instructors to convert the heretics.”f

An interesting communication is made by the Jesuit
Mundwiler in a treatise on the Jesuit von Waldburg-Zeil,
of the noble house of Zeil, who had attained great celebrity
in Germany as a popular missioner : —

“ The General, Johannes Roothaan, who had been
expelled from Rome, summoned the Jesuits scattered
throughout Westphalia to a conference in Cologne in the
year 1849, when he was on a journey from Treves to
Belgium. There were present, besides the General
Roothaan and his companion, the Jesuit Villefort, the
Jesuits Minoux, Behrens, Devis, Joseph von Ivlinkowstrom,
Stoppar, and Burgstahler. Count Joseph zu Stolberg-
Stolberg, founder of the St. Boniface Union, himself an
ex- Jesuit, also took part in the discussions. They resulted
in the decision to revive the Popular Missions, and at the
call of the General, Father Roothaan, and the Provincial,

* From the Jesuit papers in the State Archives. Friedrich, Beitrdge , p. 38.
| The letter is quoted by Druffel, Beitrdge zur fieichsgeschichtc, I. 20.

384 Fourteen Years a Jesuit

Father Minoux, the following Jesuits went as missioners
to Germany : Ketterer from England, Max von Klinkow-
strom from Australia, Roh from Belgium, Hasslacher from
France, Anderledy and Pottgeisser from America.

“ The Jesuit residences at Cologne, Bonn, Coblence,
Mayence, Munster, Paderborn, Ratisbon, Gorheim, which
became centres of the missionary network spread over
Germany, also owe their origin to the Cologne conference
of the year 1849.”*

And in spite of the expulsion of the Jesuit Order from
Germany in 1873, the Jesuits continue to the present day
in the most various parts of the Empire to carry on their
missions undisturbed, and in this way to perform one of
the most effective pieces of work conducted by the Order.

I gave Exercises to schoolboys, students, gentlemen,
ladies, girls, nuns, in private houses and educational
establishments ; and in spite of my youth in the Order, I
was even designated to give Exercises in the priestly
seminaries. The insight I thus obtained into all the
circumstances of ultramontane Catholic life, even on its
political side, was extremely instructive. But, on account
of their religious and confidential character, they cannot
be reproduced.

One circumstance in connection with the Exercises
(though not given by me) I can communicate, as it was
long ago made known to the public. It shows how the
essentially religious Exercises may also be utilised for
political purposes. It also contains a characteristic
picture of Jesuit sentiment.

The Federal Deputy and President of the Senate,
Dr. Petri, wrote, on March 17, 1895, to the publisher of
the Deutsclier Merkur : “ Shortly before the Convents
Debate in the Prussian Lower House I received a letter
from the Chief District Judge, F. Beck, dated from Heidel-

* Georg von Waldburg-Zeil, S.J. (Freiburg, 1906), p. 77 et seq .

Exaeten 3§5

berg, May 4, 1875, of which the original is at your
service, which contains the following passage : —

“ ‘ The Jesuit Roh, in 1851, when directing Exercises
at St. Peter’s (in Freiburg), said : “ Our ultimate aim is
to overthrow the Hohenzollerns — keep that before your
eyes. And if you betray it, it will be denied. The
convents and ecclesiastical associations will know how to
solve this problem.” ’ ”

This was told me by Pastor Napper, who had heard
it himself, and pledged his word of honour to its truth.

The only disproof of this credible and well-testified
utterance of the Jesuit Roh consists in a statement made
by the Episcopal Chancellery in Freiburg, which, however,
does not bear on the matter : —

“ In the minutes (!) nothing is to be found about this
expression ; in view of $ 15 of the Prussian Constitution,
and the disposition of Frederick William IV., there was
not the shadow of an excuse for any expression to the
effect communicated ; there was no such person as a
Dr. Napper, only one called Nopper, who had, however,
ou one occasion expressed himself as unfriendly to popular
missioners, and, therefore, there could scarcely be a less
dependable witness for the Chief District Judge Beck
than this man.”

Everywhere and always I tried to give my best to the
people who turned to me in their religious difficulties —
little as that may have been. But even when my belief
was no longer Catholic I endeavoured to maintain the
faith of others. As long as I outwardly bore the character
of a Jesuit and priest, I had to give those who turned
to me, trusting in this character, that which was due to
my seeming, and to what they saw in me. That I regarded
as my duty.

Only twice in the very last period of my outward
adhesion to the Order and the Church did I act differently.

386

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

On those occasions I allowed the man in me, and not the
scholastic theologian and Jesuit, to find utterance — in
relation to a woman who had murdered her child, and a
student.

The murderess, who had many years previously, out
of shame and despair, killed an illegitimate, prematurely
born child, incapable of life, directly after its birth, and
whose action had remained undiscovered and without
consequences to others, desired, being urged to it by her
confessor, to give herself up to justice. Meantime she
had contracted a happy marriage, and her denunciation
of herself would have brought great suffering and trouble
on her own and her husband’s highly respected families.
I brought her to see that the destruction of this premature
birth, which was incapable of life, was no great sin, and
that the self-denunciation required by her confessor
would have been an absolute crime.*

I freed the student of his belief in an everlasting hell,
which was torturing him into despair. Farther on I shall
return to this inhuman and irreligious “ dogma.”

Many a confession have I heard in Germany, Holland,
Belgium, England. Obviously I cannot give details here,
but a general remark may not be out of place.

Ultramontanism under Jesuit direction has collected
for itself out of the religious conception of confession a
powerful means for subduing to its own service Catholics
of all classes in every relation of life — private and public —

* Many persons may perhaps disapprove of my decision that the murder of
this illegitimate child, incapable of life, was no great crime on the mother’s part.
I could give very good reasons for my opinion, but I avoid doing so, as I have
not mentioned this case as a specimen of my ethical and moral views, but only
to show that in the last period of my priestly and Jesuit labours the human being
who thought freely, if perhaps mistakenly, was beginning to oust the dogmatically
trained, unfree Jesuit. The demand of the confessor for self -denunciation is,
however, not to be set to the account of ultramontane Catholic moral teaching,
but rather to the individual fanaticism and folly of the priest in question ; still
it shows what harm the influence of an uncritical, inexperienced, and fanatical
confessor may bring about.

Exaeten

387

for its own secular and political aspirations after dominion.
That piety also is developed in confession and spiritual
consolation supplied is a matter of course, else indeed
the confessionals would soon stand empty. But the
religious effect of confession has become a secondary
matter, although the confessing masses are not aware of
it. Its main end is the influencing of men — citizens,
politicians, and others.

Reinhold Baumstark has given an effective description
of the disastrous influence of the Jesuit Order in this
respect.*

And yet, non-religious as confession has become through
the methods by which it is carried on, though it actually
has become the centre of a state within a state, it yet
remains and must remain a noli me tangere. The Jesuit
Order knows this, and on this knowledge rest the exploit-
ation of confession and spiritual direction for its own
governing ends. The final aim of all its missions, exercises,
conferences, and prayers, is confession. In this it possesses
a lever with which it can move the world, in the first in-
stance the ultramontane Catholic world, along its own lines.

This Jesuit exploitation of confession is as old as the
Jesuit Order itself. For this we have the very competent
testimony of Pope Clement VIII. ( 1592 - 1605 ) :

“ I should like to know what they [the Jesuits] do every
day for three or four hours in the confessional, with persons
who confess every day. I cannot help inferring from
their proceedings the truth of the reproach brought against
them, that they use confession as a means for obtaining
knowledge of events taking place in the world.”f

To my great joy, still vivid within me, I may say that
I myself, in spite of the Jesuit ultramontane training,
never became a Jesuitical ultramontane confessor. I also

* Cf. my work, Das Papsttum , etc., II., 512 et seq.
f From J. Friedrich, Beitrage , p. 49.

3 88

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

confined confession, as far as possible, to the actual state-
ment of sins ; I never tried to use it for penetrating into
family and private affairs. All such revelations on the
part of penitents were stopped by me with the remark :
“ The object of confession is the statement of sins.”

In other respects too I was an un-Jesuitical confessor.
The frequency of confession, carried by Jesuitism beyond
all bounds, was energetically combated by me.

Weekly, even daily confessions, have transformed
Jesuit piety, and even more the desire of the Order to
obtain the rule over men, into a far-spread abuse. The
commands of the Church only lay down the duty of con-
fessing once in the year, and are far from advising daily
confession. Even though I did not advocate a single
annual confession, I did my best to stop too frequent
confessions. They are injurious: they make men terribly
dependent on their confessors for their religious life, and
they foster the whole race of scruple-mongers and bigots
who do so much harm to themselves and others.*

I was also employed in spiritual direction within the
Order. For a long time I had the office of “ giving ” to
the lay brothers the points for their daily morning medita-
tion. This means that I set the subject of meditation
before them, and expounded it. I enjoyed my intercourse
with these simple people, and I believe that my manner,
too, was congenial to them.

It is one of the most characteristic traits of the Jesuit
Order that it deliberately tries to maintain its lay brothers
in a state of “ simplicity ” — that is, in as great a state of
ignorance as possible. The Constitutions lay down, in
two places :

“ The lay brother [coadjutor temporalis ] is not to learn
more than he already knew before he entered the Order. ”f

* Cf. my remarks on children’s confessions in Chapter II.
f Exam, gen., VI. 6.

Exaeten

389

“ None of those who are admitted for the purpose of
domestic offices are to learn reading or writing, or, if they
have learned already, to continue their studies.”*

It is evident that the Order does not wish to expose
those on whose regular and daily work the security and
regularity of its outward life depend to the “ dangers ”
of education, which might perhaps introduce unrest into
the ranks of these useful serfs.

Another not unimportant spiritual office which was
allotted to me was that of confessor at the renewal of
vows.

Every Jesuit, until he takes his last vows, whether as
formed coadjutor or as professed, must twice a year
(usually in February and June) renew’ his vows. The
renewal (renovatio votorum) is preceded by a Triduum with
special spiritual exercises and a general confession covering
the period since the last renewal.

For this half-yearly office, special extraordinary con-
fessors are appointed, so that at any rate twice in the
year there is a possibility of unburdening the conscience to
another than the regularly appointed confessor. Of course,
the extraordinary confessor is bound to seek from the
Superior the right of absolution for “ reservation cases ”
which may be confessed to him, or else to direct the
penitent to seek absolution for his reserved sin from the
Superior. Thus the Order here too, in spite of apparent
slackening of the reins, maintains control at any rate over
the more serious lapses of its members.

But my proper office at Exaeten was, as I have already
said, that of Scriptor.

I served my apprenticeship from the lowest stage. I
had to correct proofs, and write trial articles, which
underwent correction, and so on. For this good
training I am sincerely grateful to the Order. But

* Reg. comm. 14

39 °

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

that I was a good pupil may give the Order less
cause for gratitude.

Very soon I was set to independent and scholarly work.
Church history, especially that of the Popes, was to be
my special subject, and it corresponded in every way to
my inclinations.

With what a high conception of the purity, even
divinity, of this history did I approach my task ! I never
suspected at that time that this study would have such
terrible consequences for me : the collapse of my faith,
its abandonment, separation from Church, Order and the
whole of my past life. I call these consequences terrible.
For although I recognise the great value that they were
in my life, and though I appreciate the light that they
kindled within me, yet the conflict I had to endure and
the sufferings I had to bear were terrible, and the remem-
brance of things past, irretrievably lost, is, in spite of all
that I have gained, a lasting and ever-painful open wound.

It is impossible to forsake sanctuaries, honoured for
decades out of the depths of a believing soul, to burst
through bonds which from the home of childhood upwards
have been twined round youth and manhood, without the
bitterest suffering. And yet I thank the fate, though it
seems to have been a blind one, that led me, by the hand
of the Jesuit Order, to the road which at last brought me
freedom.

Two stages on this road to freedom were of special
importance — Brussels and Berlin.

The Jesuit Fah, my two-fold Superior, sent me to
Brussels in order that I might there, with the assistance
of the Bollandist Library,* carry on more exact studies
in the history of the Papacy than the literary resources

* The Bollandists are, in a sense, a literary republic within the Belgian Province
of the Jesuit Order, with their own library and their own establishment ; but,
of course, they are subject to the general Constitutions, rules, and Superiors of
the Order, like all other Jesuits.

Exaeten

39 1

at Exaeten would have rendered possible. I also received
permission to use the public libraries of the Belgian capital.

In the Jesuit de Smet, at that time Superior of the
Bollandists, I found an amiable and ever-ready guide
in my studies. That he, as I firmly believed, was a
sceptic in no way detracted from his human excellence.

My time at Brussels was but short, but I made good
use of it, and the study of historical works, which were
not written from the ultramontane Catholic standpoint,
but dealt with Church and Papacy in a free spirit, from
a purely scholarly point of view, was a revelation to me.
At the age of thirty-eight I read such works for the first
time ! Such things then existed ? The Papacy and
Church could be approached from another side ? Their
history consisted not only of light, but even of darkest
shadow ?

Such questions and thoughts stormed in upon me like
a flood, and caused walls to totter which had hitherto
blocked out every view of the “ other side ” of the
“ Divine ” Church and the “ Divine ” Papacy.

On my return to Exaeten, I hinted to the Jesuit Fah
some of the impressions I had received. The serious
character of the impressions made on me at Brussels
cannot have been quite clear to him — perhaps on account
of my very guarded report — for he only made a few casual
remarks about “ temptation ” and “ struggle.” But very
soon temptation and struggle came my way through his
agency, though in a very different manner from that
meant by Fah.

One day he said to me : “ Windthorst wishes the

question of the Papal States to be brought forward again ;
in the first place, the Laacher Stimmen are to publish
articles on the subject, showing the necessity of the Papal
States for the freedom of the Pope. Afterwards the
articles are to appear as a pamphlet ; set to work at once,

392

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

and write the articles. Unlimited space will be at your
disposal in the Laacher Stimmen.”

AVhen I received this order — for an order it was —
a tumult had already broken out within me, for my reason
and will were fighting on this very subject of the Papacy.
Even the dogmatic religious difficulties to which I have
before alluded had fallen into the background before the
questions : Is the Pope the Vicar of Christ ? Is the
Papacy of divine origin ? Is it an infallible guide in
religion and morals ? Whether Christ is actually and
really present in the consecrated host is a matter of
enormous importance for the religious life of the Catholic
Christian, and especially of the priest ; but, after all,
it is a question of faith. But whether the Papacy has
played that particular part in the world, whether in
religion and morals in the course of centuries that blessing
has proceeded from it which its divine origin and its
divine mission would of necessity demand — these are
questions of history to be solved by historic means.

And I had already looked too deeply into ecclesiastical
and Papal history in the Brussels libraries to be able to
give a cheerful and unhesitating assent to these questions.

Therefore the order to defend the Papacy, and defend
it as a divine institution, which would suffer wrong if
it did not also receive the position of a temporal sovereign
with territorial possessions, was a hard one for me. I
tried to evade the task by pointing to others of better
ability and more learning. Fah, who could be very curt
on occasion, would listen to no excuse, and said : “ Do
you write the articles, and say no more about it.”

I lacked the courage to reveal my inner thoughts —
it was fortunate that I did, else I should not stand to-day
where I do stand — and I wrote the articles. But how ?
I could say nothing from my own convictions. I therefore
took what others had written on the subject. It is only

Exaeten

393

the arrangement that is my own. These articles, and the
pamphlet afterwards, received a great deal of praise.
Windthorst, the intellectual author of my production,
frequently expressed to me at Berlin his especial appre-
ciation, and the leader of the Centre Party, Dr. Porsch,
told me one day at the dinner table of the Berlin Catholic
Provost, Jahnel, that at the General Assembly of Catholics
at Buchum, the lecturer on the Papacy, Baron von Wendt-
Gevelinghausen, had spoken about my Church and State
pamphlet.

Even more distressing to me was a second literary
task.

My Provincial, the Jesuit Ratgeb, commissioned me
to write a pamphlet in defence of the Jesuit Order, with
the title, Why should the Jesuits not return to Germany?
This was after my stay in Berlin. The collapse of my
religion had already taken place, and the necessity of
leaving the Order and the Church was pressing upon me.
In this mood I was to become the official apologist of the
Order ! I did what I could to escape from this truly
terrible command. Ratgeb had told me how effective
it would be, if a member of the German nobility belonging
to the Jesuit Order were to write this pamphlet. I,
therefore, begged him to pass me over, and entrust the
work to one of the Jesuits, Prince Radziwill, Count Stolberg-
Stolberg, Baron von Hammerstein, or Baron von Geyer-
Schweppenburg, who had been much longer in the Order
than myself. In vain — I was said to be the best fitted.
Here, again, I dared not reveal myself. I should never
have attained to liberty, as I shall explain later. So I
accepted, an unwilling slave to obedience, and a hypocrite
in my own eyes. And yet I did not want to be a thorough
hypocrite. I transported myself back to the years of the
novitiate, when I still believed in the excellence of the
Order. And I wrote from my heart the faith that I then

394

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

had, the ideal of the Order which at that time I had seen
before me. I brought about their resurrection, and
described them in words. Thus the pamphlet became a
confession d' outre tombe ; a gruesome grave, in which my
faith and youthful ideals were mouldering, lay like a dark
abyss between the writer and that of which he wrote.

And yet the pamphlet was a piece of hypocrisy. The
compulsion in which I was placed explains, but cannot
fully justify, my self-deception. I had to choose between
writing and retaining the possibility of freedom, or not
writing and continuing to lead perhaps a long life in
servitude and the most painful captivity.

Before anyone throws a stone at me, he should first
find himself in a similar situation, and then cast it, if he
still can.

A third and longer pamphlet written by me was called
Christ or Anti-Christ. It was a result of my stay in Berlin.
It was this sojourn that brought me freedom, but it was
only long afterwards that I cast off my deep-rooted, because
inherited, dogmatic opinions — for instance, the dogma of
the metaphysical divine humanity of Christ (the doctrine
of the two natures, God and Man). At that time I did
not realise that the most prominent Protestant theologians
denied this “ fundamental dogma of Christianity,” and I
thought this denial anti-Christian. And, therefore, in this
pamphlet, the composition of which was specially advocated
by the Superiors of the Order, I collected passages from
all the Protestant theological works in which the divinity
of Christ was denied, and opposed to them the traditional
proofs of Christ’s divinity.

One piece of literary work which I was specially urged
to undertake I did refuse, and I am still glad I did so.

The Jesuit Tilmann Pesch desired that the Provincial
should make me his collaborator in his Flugschriften zur
Wehr und Lehr.

Exaeten

395

The personality of Pesch, and still more the harshness
of his denominational polemics, were so repugnant to me
that, even at the risk of having a black mark set against
my name, I declined outright, and even acquainted the
Provincial Eatgeb with the reason for my refusal.* He
made no answer, but Pesch never forgave me for refusing
him.

As long as I remained a Jesuit, my literary labours
were highly appreciated, both in the Order and outside.
Scarcely had I left the Order than they were depreciated
by the same persons who had hitherto praised them.
This, of course, is the Jesuit ultramontane fashion ; there
is but a short interval between “ Hosanna ! ” and “ Crucify
him ! ” as indeed is the case everywhere.

However, I am quite ready to join myself in the
depreciation. The writings of my Jesuit period are poor,
both in matter and form. Indeed, they could not be
otherwise. For they were composed at a time when all
religious enthusiasm was quenched in me, when doubts
were gnawing at my religious convictions, and they were
written in part against my own conviction, under the
influence of Jesuit obedience and distressing outward
circumstances. What good thing can flow from such a
source ?

Soon after I left the Order I publicly repudiated my
Jesuit writings, in particular those about the Papal States
and in defence of the Order. And I had a right to repudiate
them, for I was not morally free when I wrote them.

I must say another not unessential word about my
pamphlet, Why should the Jesuits not return to Germany?

So far as the facts and historical aspect are concerned,
it is very superficial, and full of objective untruths. Still,

* Instead of me, Pesch appointed another amanuensis, the Jesuit Reichinann*
who is still carrying on his denominational and quarrelsome activity — anony-
mously and pseudonymously.

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

396

the fault was not mine, but the Order’s, which, as I have
already shown, most carefully conceals the truth about
itself and its history from its members and adherents.
All that I quote there in defence of the Order is taken
from Jesuit writers, and at that time I did not myself
know how they falsify the truth. I only came to know
the real history of the Order after I left it. Had I known
it before composing my pamphlet in its defence nothing
— not even the prospect of the most serious consequences
— would have kept me from refusing the commission to
write it. True, even at that time I had already broken
with the Jesuit Order, but on account of my own experience,
and because the religious Catholic belief in me had begun to
weaken, not because I knew its history. Among a thousand
Jesuits there are not two who know it.

To the interesting experiences of my Jesuit period of
literary activity belongs the following :

In the year 1889 appeared the work, History of the
Moral - Theological Disputes in the Roman Catholic Church
since the Sixteenth Century, with Contributions to the History
and Characterisation of the Jesuit Order based on Unpublished
Documents, and published by Ignatius von Dollinger and
Fr. Heinrich Reusch,* which supplies a whole arsenal of
pointed weapons against the Jesuits. It caused great
excitement in the Order. It was feared that disastrous
consequences would ensue. The Jesuits, Tilmann Pesch
and Pachtler, wanted to write a refutation. They said
such attacks could not remain unanswered. The facts
revealed must be “ set back into their right light.” In a
conversation between these two Jesuits and the Provincial
Ratgeb, at which I was present, the matter was discussed
in detail. Ratgeb gave the wise counsel : “ Do not answer

* Geschichte der Moralstreit igke it e n in der romisch-katholischen Kirche seit dem
listen Jahrhunderty mit Beitrdgen zur Geschichte und Charakteristik des Jesuitenordens
mif Grund ungedruckter Aktenstiicke bearbeitet und herausgegeben von Ignaz von
Dollinger und Fr . Heinrich Reusch.

Exaeten

397

it ; a refutation would give the book importance and a
wider circulation, and would draw the attention of the
Catholics to it. The arrangement and style of the book
are so cumbersomely dreary [very unfortunately Ratgeb
was right] that it will lead a neglected existence in libraries,
and do us no injury.” Ratgeb prophesied truly, and I
must make the shameful confession that I only studied
the book and recognised its value after I had left the
Order.

In Exaeten too I had a second proof of the ridiculous
prudery which everywhere scents immorality and tempta-
tions to break the seventh commandment (in spite of the
official moral-theological studies of sexual things).

A Catholic artist had been commissioned to paint a
picture of the patroness of Christian philosophy, St.
Catherine of Alexandria, which was to hang in the chief
study of the young philosophers of the Order. The
picture arrived, and the Provincial, the Jesuit Lohmann,
invited some of the Fathers, among whom I was one, to
a preliminary view. It was painted in a very “ pious ”
style — in the style of Deger’s Madonnas. The face was
young and pretty, but expressionless. The Provincial
was greatly dissatisfied. He said that she was too pretty
and too young. The sight might prove a temptation to
the young scholastics ; and so St. Catherine had to put
up with a few additional strokes of the brush, which made
her appear older and not quite so pretty.

A horrible experience, which also throws a strong
light on the Christian love of humanity and our neighbours
evinced by the Jesuits shall conclude my reminiscences of
Exaeten. During my theological studies at Ditton Hall,
one of my co -scholastics, Joseph Kreutzer, was dismissed
from the Order. His dismissal caused a great sensation.
Brother Kreutzer, with whom I had studied philosophy,
had always appeared to me a good and zealous member.

39 8 Fourteen Years a Jesuit

We never heard any details about the cause of his dis-
missal, only general unfavourable comments were spread
about him. Then suddenly Kreutzer appeared in the
parish of Exaeten, at Baexem, and from there often came
to the Consulting Room at Exaeten, to consult with
various Jesuits. He had particular confidence in me,
though why I do not know. He acquainted me with the
history of his troubles. He had been wrongfully dismissed
— he had done no wrong. The Superiors, in particular
the Provincial, at that time the Jesuit Lohmann, and
his Socius, the Jesuit Pfitz, had treated him with great
harshness. He was now alone in the world, without any
means, and on the brink of despair.

As the Jesuit Pfitz was also at Exaeten as Socius of
Lohmann’s successor, the Provincial Ratgeb, I went to
him and informed him of Kreutzer’s circumstances, and
begged his assistance. Pfitz would not hear of it. He
said Kreutzer had brought his sad fate upon himself.
The Order had acted very generously towards him ;
nothing more could be done for him. When I informed
Kreutzer of this, in another and last conversation, the poor
fellow was overwhelmed by a storm of despair and dis-
couragement. A few days later he cut his throat with a
razor, and bled to death, in a room in the poor village
inn where he was staying. He was put away in the
churchyard at Baexem as a suicide. A few weeks later
I was passing the churchyard with the Jesuit Pfitz, and I
begged him to go to the neglected grave and say a prayer
over the unfortunate departed. His answer was a curt
negative. ' ,

CHAPTER XXVII

BERLIN*

From the lonely Dutch moorland to the cosmopolitan stir
of the German Imperial capital !

When in the beginning of May, 1888 , after a walk with
the Jesuit Spillmann through the corridors at Exaeten,
I was returning to my own room, I received an order to go
at once to my Provincial, Father Ratgeb. He communi-
cated this astonishing piece of news :

“ You and Father Fah are to go at once to Berlin,
until further notice. Father Fah will live in St. Hedwig’s
Infirmary, you with the delegate of the Prince Bishop,
Provost Jahnel, w T ho has given his consent to this. The
object of your Berlin residence is to prepare the ground
for a permanent settlement. Whether, and to what
extent, you will at once be able to practise any spiritual
care there, depends on the goodwill of the Provost and
of the Prince Bishop of Breslau, Dr. Kopp. You must,
therefore, try to be on good terms with both these per-
sonages. In order that your stay in Berlin may lead to
no annoyance with the police and other authorities, you
are to be matriculated as a student at the University.
What lectures you attend is left to your own decision, but
I desire that you should occupy yourself in detail with
Protestant theology, in order to be able to combat it in
your writings. You are to place yourself entirely at the

* In Berlin too I was twice stationed as Jesuit — 1888 and 1S92. For the
reason for which in the previous chapter I recorded the events at Exaeten under
one heading, I shall do the same with my Berlin sojourns.

399

400

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

disposal of the leaders of the Centre, and especially Wind-
thorst, who approves of our plan, but without in any way
intruding upon them. There is to be no relation of Superior
and subordinate between Father Fah and you — all impor-
tant steps must be discussed by both of you. You are
to send me regular reports. I have also another commis-
sion for you personally, which requires a good deal of
skill. I have been informed by the General that the
Prince Bishop Kopp is annoyed with the Jesuits, because
he believes that they are opposing his appointment as
Cardinal. You are to write to the Prince Bishop that you
are commissioned to inform him that we German Jesuits
should be very glad to see him made Cardinal, and that
you are ready at any time to bring him the expression of
our respectful and friendly sentiments. Further [Ratgeb
added this at the end as a mere detail], you are first to go
to Schurgast, in Upper Silesia, to your relation, Baron
Otto von Ketteler, who is dying and desires to confess
to you ; and after that you are to perform the marriage
ceremony for your brother Clement. Meantime, Father
Fah will precede you to Berlin.”

Such, not literally but as to their content, were my
instructions as a Jesuit ambassador to Berlin. I was
greatly agitated by the whole commission. It was a
very striking and honourable mark of confidence on the
part of the Order. Was I to reply to it by revealing my
inner troubles ? After a short deliberation I decided
“ No.” I had a human right to attain a clear decision
about the doubts that were troubling me, and only the
freedom of study in Berlin could bring me this clearness.

I brought consolation to my former fellow-pupil at
Mayence, Otto von Ketteler. I performed the marriage
ceremony for my younger brother Clement with the
Baroness Kunigunde Raitz von Frenz, in the Chapel of
Castle Kellenberg, near Juliers, before a large assembly

Berlin

401

of relations, and then I entered the ancient and ugly
Provost’s house in Berlin [at the present time there is a
stately new building], behind St. Hedwig’s Church, where
an attic, into which came wind and rain but very little
light, was assigned me as a dwelling-place.

Soon I was on good terms with Provost Jahnel, whom
I learned to value as an intelligent, energetic man, and an
organiser of the first rank. He was not exactly well
disposed to the Jesuits, but Fah and I got on very well
with him. He had no objection to candid speech.

True, he afforded us little opportunity for our pastoral
activity.* Fah had to minister in the newly founded
pastorate of the Sacred Heart in the Schonhauser Strasse,
and I in the parish of Wicksdorf.

Every Saturday evening I went out there, heard
confessions, celebrated High Mass, preached and catechised,
and returned on Sunday evening to the Provost’s house.
We also helped with confessions occasionally in St. Hedwig’s
Church. Besides that there was a pastorate of nuns,
which was very uncongenial to me, at St. Hedwig’s
Infirmary, the Grey Sisters of the Niederwall Strasse, and
the Ursuline nuns, in the Linden Strasse.

We always kept in touch with the Centre Party.
Windthorst was especially amiable. The deputies, Baron
von Franckenstein, Dr. Lieber, Count Praschma, sen.,
Count Conrad Prensing, Count Galen, sen., frequently
visited us, and we were often their guests at the Kaiserhof.
On great occasions we always had particularly good places
in the President’s Tribune of the Imperial and Prussian
Parliaments. But apart from occasional discussions about
political matters and questions of the day, we were not

* Provost Jahnel visited me again in 1897 — two years after my marriage, in
my Berlin house at the Kurfiirstendamm. He made no attempt to convert me,
but only expressed his regret at the step I had taken. He remained over an hour
in animated conversation with me. I greatly regretted his early and unexpected
death.

2 A

402

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

employed in politics. We were, in the first instance, only
to prepare the ground.

I had some very interesting conversations with Dr.
Lieber, leader of the Centre. He had temporary quarters
with the Grey Sisters in the Niederwall Strasse, where I
also lived on the occasion of my second stay in Berlin.
We often dined together there, and we spent many evenings
in my room or in his. The insight which Lieber afforded
me into his methods of thought and action was not exactly
edifying. He was an intriguer and a thoroughly pushing
man. It was a matter of annoyance to him that there
were other leaders besides himself in the Centre Party,
and it was not his fault that he did not become the sole
leader. The most important of the numerous conver-
sations was that in which he described to me his relations
to Windthorst, and in characterising Windthorst let fall
the remark that the unscrupulous Guelph, after the
celebrated speech at Cologne on the 6th February, 1887,
in which he expressed his views on the intervention of
Leo XIII. in the matter of the Septennate, had said :

“ On that occasion I lied myself out of the difficulty
with the help of God.”

The details, including my own regret at an indiscretion
I had committed, and the wording of a statement of
Lieber’s in the Germania of February 20th, 1896, which
referred to it, are given in my book, Rom und das Zentrum.

At that time Lieber was circulating very zealously a
pamphlet printed for private circulation, in which he
attacked bis colleague of the Centre, Racke. He handed
me several copies, with the commission to send them to
my Provincial Superior.*

* Lieber, in his declaration, speaks of reminiscences which he had composed,
and which were perhaps to appear later. If this were to happen, I should find
myself compelled to publish some of Lieber’s letters as a complement to the
reminiscences. Some of them are addressed to me, and some to a lady, who gave
them to me, unasked, for my free disposal.

Berlin

403

My commission to the Bishop of Breslau was executed
in the following manner :

I wrote to him what the Jesuit Ratgeb had said to
me, and asked him whether I might call on him for further
explanation. Kopp answered from his castle of Johannis-
burg in a very diplomatic manner. The difficulties with
the Jesuit Order had never been as great, he said, as my
Superior seemed to assume. Everything was now in order,
so that further steps would be superfluous. And in fact
in the year 1893 Kopp attained the goal of his ardent de-
sires and energetic efforts — the Red Hat — and thus became
Cardinal by the grace of the Pope and the Jesuit Order.

The main interest in my Berlin stay was concentrated in
the University and Library, that is to say, in my studies.

After matriculating (Fall, who had not passed a school-
leaving examination could only attend as a “ hearer ”*), I
entered my name for Adolf Harnack’s “ History of Dogma ”
and Friedrich Paulsen’s “ History of Modern Philosophy.”
I refrained from entering for any other theological and
philosophical lectures ; I wished to acquaint myself with
Protestant theology by means of private study.

It has often been asserted that Harnack’s lectures
caused my secession from Rome. That is incorrect.
Harnack and his lectures did not make the smallest impres-
sion on my development. I admired his learning, but I
was amazed at the ignorance of Catholicism which he
frequently evinced, as did also many other University
Professors. Harnack did not supply me with a single
thought or impulse which could have hastened the separa-
tion from my past, far less suggested it. Nor do I think
that Harnack is a man who will have a permanent influence.
For that — paradoxical as it sounds — he is too clever.

* Only persons who have passed the School -leaving ( Abiturienten ) Examina-
tion of a State High School can be matriculated as members of the University.
Others may attend as guests (hearers). This is known as hospiticren. — Translator .

4°4 Fourteen Years a Jesuit

He sees things in too many colours, and from too many
points of view. His nature is too conciliatory and, there-
fore, he delights in theses and antitheses, and in seeking
to combine contradictions in a “ higher third.” For de-
tailed research and minute accuracy Harnack’s method
furnishes a model, but it has no influence in determining
the further development of religious theology. In detailed
research Harnack leads the way, but he is no pioneer in
his conception of life.

If, therefore, I cannot include the theologian and
scholar Harnack among my liberators — and, indeed, was
often in later life obliged to oppose him violently in this
his double capacity* — I remember with gratitude and
pleasure the kindness of the man Harnack, which I also
experienced in his hospitable house.

Friedrich Paulsen’s lectures were an aesthetic pleasure,
both in form and matter. Two visits, also, which I paid
to Paulsen in his quiet home among the pine woods of
Steglitz, brought me many interesting and stimulating
experiences. But even then I perceived what I long
afterwards expressed to Paulsen himself, that he was
essentially a bookworm, who saw and judged the world
and its events only from the standpoint of his student’s
existence, and not in the light of facts. Paulsen too had
no direct or determining influence either as a personality
or teacher.

The man who did exercise a powerful influence over
me was Heinrich von Treitschke, and it was just his course
of lectures for which I had not entered.

My Provincial Ratgeb had, it is true, left me a free
hand in the choice of lectures, but his intention was that
I should only attend theological and philosophical courses.
Had I informed him that I wished also to hear Treitschke’s

* ZeitscJirift, Marz, 1007 ; 2 Februarheft, pp. 338-349 ; Adolf Harnack fiber
den Kathdizismus.

Berlin

405

historical lectures, it would have led to explanations which
I desired to avoid.

So I chose the road of somewhat extensive “ visiting.”*
On the very first occasion I heard a diatribe of Treitschke’s
on the hereditary hostility of Papal Rome towards Ger-
many. The eloquence of his language, though at first
difficult to follow, and the passionate patriotism of his
irresistible attacks on the foes of his country and enlighten-
ment, carried me away. His burning patriotism kindled
in me the yet glowing fire of German sentiment, which for
the last decade had been smothered under the ashes of
Jesuitism, and now blazed forth once more in a bright
flame. Again and again I felt drawn to his lecture room.
Ten or twelve times, at least, I must have heard Treitschke
without paying my scot.

It is such men that we need in our University chairs,
to assist us against Rome and everything Romish, against
the foes of civilisation and Fatherland. It is not a clari-
fied knowledge, which is colourless and characterless, but
knowledge of flesh and blood, knowledge expressed with
individual and daring convictions, which can educate an
upright generation.

Besides my public lectures from Harnack and Paulsen,
and far exceeding them in importance for me, were my
private studies in my attic in the Provost’s house, and in
the reading room of the Royal Library. I may say that
I there made an exhaustive study of the whole newer
Protestant theology and philosophy.

Among the philosophers Kant was my leader, whom
I now first learned to know in his true character. Through
Kant I attained to a recognition of the autonomy of
reason, and its right to self-direction. Kant confirmed
me infallibly in the consciousness, which had been long,
but timidly, dawning within me, of the right and duty of

* Hospitiererii

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

406

conducting research, free and independent of faith in
authority, of being not a mere child in leading strings,
but a thinking human being, even in face of the things of
the other world. What miserable superficialities my Jesuit
Philosophy Professors had repeated to me about Kant’s
“ unemployable ” because “illogical” Critique of Reason !

If Kant was a liberator of my reason, Schleiermacher,
Rothe and Biedermann became my liberators in the
domain of religious theology.

I learned to understand the conception of religion, and
to value it, apart from ecclesiasticism, and even in oppo-
sition to it ; I learned to know the Churches for what
they are — diseases incidental to religious development ; I
began to understand that there are no principles or
formulas of faith, nor yet can be ; that the name of dogma
conceals a mass of fabulous and absurd theories ( e.g .
original sin, the Trinity) ; that “ salvation ” cannot be
accomplished by blood, not even by the blood of a “ God-
Man,” but by self-purification ; I saw that Christianity
was not a hieratical organisation, but individual life.

Two other liberators I must also mention with gratitude,
neither of them theologians, Ranke and Gregorovius ;
both showed me the Papacy in its historical, not in its
pretended “ Divine ” aspect ; both inspired me to special
studies on the social and civilising aspect of the Papacy,
which caused me to realise that, though the Papacy is a
prominent institution of historic importance and power, it
it still thoroughly human, and burdened, like every other
long-lived human institution, with an enormous mass of
religious and moral error of the most serious nature, the
traces of which, in the course of centuries down to the
present day, have caused not only blessing and civilisation,
but also ruinous destruction and brutal ignorance.

I also learned to know the Ultramontane Papacy and
indeed Ultramontanism in general, as a political abuse

Berlin

407

of the Catholic religion. I came to know that the Vicars
of Christ, in spite of their religious vocation, had gradually
become political sovereigns, and continue even to the
present day to put forward this claim, absolutely contrary
to the doctrine of Christ. Of course, all this was not as
clear in my mind at that time as it is when I set it down
to-day. My Berlin studies were the beginning, the dawn,
of my later clear recognition ; they set in motion what
was not built up into a mountain, but at first produced a
huge abyss which swallowed up all the faith which had
accumulated in me for forty years. But I crossed over
the abyss, and found my way to heights of world con-
ception worthy of a human being.

The consciousness of the entire sacrifice of one
dogma was completed even during my Berlin residence,
and strangely enough it was one of my pastoral experiences
that brought about this sacrifice.

A student lamented to me that the dogma of ever-
lasting punishment was driving him to despair. This
confession of his removed the last check on a resolution
that had long been seeking consummation in me. I told
him that the belief in everlasting hell was blasphemous,
and this one word of deliverance also delivered me from
my belief in hell.

Further than this and to the actual denial of hell and
a personal devil I did not attain at that time ; at any
rate, I did not express this opinion, and probably scarcely
acknowledged it to myself. It was only the formal breach
with the Church and the Order which effected this too.

What did I not suffer from the dogma of eternal
punishment, and what have not many millions of souls
suffered from it ! And yet in the whole history of religion,
including the pre- and non-Christian religions, there is no
doctrine so brutally blasphemous as this, just on account
of its “ Christian ” premises.

408

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

The “ Christian ” God as the Catholic-Ultramontane,
and in part also the orthodox evangelical, dogmatics de-
scribe Him, becomes so odious a Being that a reasonable
man must turn away with horror from such a God. If
there is such a God, then the deepest pessimism and
hatred of God is the only thing possible for us, His pitiable
creatures, and I confess that from such a God I would not
even wish to accept heaven. He would be a hell-God —
worse even than the Prince of Hell himself.

For let us realise the Christian doctrine of God and His
hell, and the doctrine of the “ Divine Grace ” required for
the avoidance of hell :

(1) The All- knowing, All-good, and All-powerful God,
although He foresaw that millions, even milliards, of people
would suffer the everlasting pains of hell, yet created the
human race, without any compulsion from without or
within, and thus Himself, by His own free act, inaugurated
the population of hell.

(2) The All-knowing, All-good, and All-powerful God

acts in a Divine manner at the procreation of each
individual human being by introducing the soul into the
embryo, although He foresees that millions of people,
called into being by Him, also of His own free will, will
become everlastingly wretched in His hell. It is in His
power to make the individual act of procreation of no
effect by not creating the human soul, but He does create
it, with the consciousness and the knowledge : “ This

soul, which is completely innocent of its earthly existence,
which unasked receives its life from Me alone, will
become everlastingly wretched, will suffer nameless tortures
for ever in the flames of Hell, produced and maintained
by Me ; therefore, I create a being for everlasting torture.”
But still He creates it.

(3) No human exertion, however great, can deserve of
God the “ grace ” to resist the temptations of sin, which

Berlin

409

will cast him irretrievably into hell. The “ effective grace ”
[gratia efficax] which alone enables him to overcome sin,
is an absolutely free gift of the All-wise and All-good God,
Who refuses it, although, being all-knowing, He knows that
this refusal must signify everlasting hell for the man.

What judgment should we pass on a man who would
permit even one human being, whose fate lies in his hand,
to be wretched in body and soul throughout his whole
life ? All the rest of mankind would trample such a
wretch to pieces. And yet the good God holds the fate
of all men so completely in His hand that every other
state of dependence is insignificant by comparison. For
men are His creation, called into being by Him, unasked,
and maintained in being.

Indeed, a man condemned to hell by this “ God ”
might cry into His face : “ It is You who should be in hell,
not I, for You called me into life unasked, although You
foresaw that I should end in hell. It was You who refused
me Your grace, although this alone could have saved me
from hell.”

The dogma of hell is, more than any other, a “ priest’s
dogma ” ; that is, a dogma invented by a priestly caste,
who desired to maintain mankind in fear for its own
dominating ends.

Another pastoral labour, the deliverance of a woman
from a position of disgrace, in which several of my relations
generously assisted me with large sums of money, became
many years later, after my breach with Rome, a source
of great trouble for myself and my brave wife,* but unfor-
tunately the inviolable seal of confession keeps the whole
locked safely from the public gaze.

I shall be easily believed when I say that my whole
soul was in a state of turmoil during my Berlin residence.
My sleepless nights began again. I suffered so much that

* CJ. my pamphlet, In eigener Sache und A ndercs (Berlin, H. Walther), pp. 17, 18.

4io

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

when I returned to Exaeten, in September, my emaciated
appearance and my prematurely grey hair attracted atten-
tion. But I still struggled against taking the last step and
separating myself from my inherited religion. The deeply
rooted doctrine, again and again impressed upon me
during my life in the Order, of the diabolical origin of
religious doubts had even yet not quite perished within me.
Above all, the terrible thought of a separation, and the
almost complete impossibility of carrying it out, stood
before me like a threatening spectre, and an impassable
wall seemed erected before my eyes.

My family is one of the oldest and most respected of
the Catholic families of Germany, and for centuries has
been one of the mainstays of Catholicism. I had an old
mother, and brothers and sisters who, with sincere fidelity,
clung to their inherited religion, and to whom I was bound
by strong and tender bonds of love. That I was a priest and
a Jesuit was in their eyes and those of all my relations an
honour and a blessing. The suffering I should cause them
by my separation from the Church and the Order gave
me a sensation of horror. Further, I was no mere faithful
layman — I was a priest, the member of an Order. Thus
chains were fastened about me which could not be unloosed,
but only burst asunder. What scandal should I not
occasion to the Catholic world and my family name and
my former position, if I fell away from grace ! The weight
of these thoughts, and their power in checking my final
resolution can only be understood by those who have been
in a similar position, who, with equal enthusiasm, equal
readiness for sacrifice, have adhered to Catholicism and
Jesuitism.

The effect on me of these internal struggles may be
shown by two circumstances :

A little daughter of my elder brother Wilhelm died of
diphtheria in July, 1888 . When I received the telegram

Berlin

411

with the news of her death, I prayed, with bitter tears and
on my knees, to the soul of the child — for at that time I
still believed that she could hear me — to obtain from God
that I too might die, and thus be saved from ruin, for
at that time I regarded as ruin that which lay before me.

I myself fell seriously ill with diphtheria, as the result
of confessing an invalid suffering from this disease. I
thought that the fulfilment of my wish was near, and I
prayed earnestly to God that my illness might lead to death.

But I lived on, and I submitted to the decree of a God
whose “ kind and Fatherly providence ” was still one of
my dogmas. But I wished to leave Berlin, and to adopt
the last means of subduing, if possible, the turmoil within
me. I therefore begged my Provincial, Ratgeb, to send
me to the Tertiate. There, in the quiet of a renewed
novitiate, the decisive struggle was to be fought to an end.
Ratgeb consented to my wish, and in October, 1888 , I
began my “ Third Probationary Year ” at Portico, near
the English manufacturing town of St. Helens. It was a
probationary year in a very different sense from that
understood by the Constitutions of the Order. For in it
I made trial of my faith.*

* In ray place, the Jesuit Frins went to Berlin. He became Windthoret’s
theological and political legal adviser, and retained this position until his death.
My Berlin companion, the Jesuit Fah, remained more than a year longer in the
capital ; then suddenly very much against his wish and will, he was transferred
to Brazil. What the Order desired to attain when it sent Fah and me to Berlin
w*as in fact achieved, and since then numerous Jesuits have been active in Berlin.
Their headquarters are at St. Hedwig’s Infirmary, in the Grosse Hamburger
Strasse. From this centre they carry on the w'ork of their Order in a compre-
hensive and truly Jesuitical, i.e. untruthful, fashion, in spite of the Jesuit Law.
In order to be able to “ work ” undisturbed, they assume the title of “ Professor ”
or “ Doctor ” without having the least right to either, and in this wTongful assump-
tion of false titles they are strongly supported by the Central Organ of the Centre
Party — the Berlin Germania . It publishes innocent announcements, such as :
Professor (or Doctor) So-and-So wall give an address here or there, or preach a
sermon, or give exercises. But these professors or doctors are Jesuits. Sometimes
six and more of these professors and doctors are working at the same time in
Berlin.

CHAPTER XXVIII

THE TERTIATE AND THE END

The Constitutions of the Order make frequent mention
of the Tertiate.*

As the novitiate lays the foundation for the structure
of Jesuit asceticism, so the Tertiate is to supply the coping-
stone of the building, after the conclusion of the long years
of study. The Tertiate is essentially a repetition of the
novitiate. It is, therefore, officially designated “ Third
Probationary Year ” ( Tertius annus probationis), while
the novitiate consists of the first two probationary years.

All the exercises and experiments of the novitiate
are repeated in the Tertiate. The chief experiment- — the
Exercises extending over four weeks — are there inten-
sified by the midnight meditation, omitted in the novitiate
out of consideration for the youth of the novices and the
sleep they require.

The daily instructions given by the Instructor (the
official title of the Director of the Tertiate) deal with the
Constitutions and the history of the Order.

In my introduction I mentioned that when I left the
Order, I left behind the valuable notes I had made on
these instructions. The instructions, however, were only
valuable in as far as they contained explanations of the
Constitutions, the so-called Institute of the Society of
Jesus, and even there they concealed more than they

* Exam, gen., I., 12, 18; IV., 16; V., 2 — 1; X., 7. Cong. VIII., Decret. 0,
Cong. XVI., Decret. 34, etc.

412

The Tertiate and the End 413

revealed. All that they provided of the history of the
Order was one huge falsification.

We learned nothing about the inward conflicts, nothing
of the abuses which originated in the Order, nothing of
its contradiction between words and deeds. The history
of the Order was set before us as one great tale of glory,
free from stain and reproach.

The Instructor, and also Rector, of the House was the
Jesuit Augustine Oswald, whose truly Jesuitical love of
gain I have already characterised.

As all Tertiaries are priests, we were utilised a great
deal for pastoral work, such as preaching and hearing
confessions. Thus I obtained an instructive insight into
the religious and social conditions of England. The con-
ditions in the great towns (I speak chiefly of Liverpool
and Manchester) were, at any rate at that time, terrible.
On the one hand, magnificent churches, equipped with
excessive luxury ; on the other, terrible misery, both social
and religious. Drink caused frightful havoc, and not only
in the lowest and lower classes of the population. I was
curiously impressed, too, by the systematic exploitation
of religion for financial objects. There were, for instance,
the charity sermons, where matters were arranged as in a
theatre or concert room. The prices of the seats in the
church varied according to their position, from 6d. to £1, or
even higher, if a particularly celebrated preacher was in
the pulpit. The Jesuit Bernard Vaughan, of whom I
had seen more than enough at Stonyhurst, was in great
request for charity sermons.

In the residences of the English Province (Portico and
Ditton Hall, though situated in England, belonged to
the German Province of the Order) I was also frequently
occupied in pastoral work, and thus had an opportunity
of confirming interesting observations no longer new to
me ; first, the excellent fare in eating and drinking of the

414 Fourteen Years a Jesuit

poor Jesuits, and, secondly, the completeness of Jesuit
obedience.

At that time the Jesuit Anderledy was General of the
Order. He often took very strong measures against
abuses. He was particularly anxious to limit luxurious
living, and to suppress independent action, which the
English Jesuits, in particular, were inclined to adopt.
For both these reasons the “ German General,” as the
Swiss Anderledy was called, was hated in the English
Province. Once at dinner in the Jesuit residence at St.
Helens, when port and claret were circulating, and loosen-
ing men’s tongues, I heard the most spiteful expressions
used about Anderledy — e.g. “ I wish the man would die
soon,” which, indeed, did happen.

Here, too, I encountered what appears so often in
the history of the Order : theoretical submission, blind
obedience to the Superior, who represents God (Pope
and General), practical disloyalty as soon as the Vicar of
God causes any annoyance.

I had entered the novitiate full of idealism, the strength
of which carried me over opposing difficulties, and my
idealism had drawn its strength from my firm belief in
the divinity of the Catholic Church.

I entered the Tertiate devoid of all idealism, and
wounded to death in my belief. But I entered it with
the honestly taken resolution if possible there to win
back my faith, and through it my idealism.

In accordance with this resolution I worked, suffered
and prayed in the Tertiate. Yes, indeed, I prayed. More
urgent pleading is seldom sent upwards from the depths
of any human soul. For the horrible alternatives stood in
dreadful clearness before my eyes day and night. Either I
succeed in fighting down my doubts, i.e. recognise them as
error and temptation, and then I remain, not only a Catholic
and a Catholic priest, but also a Jesuit, because in that

The Tertiate and the End 415

case the favourable judgment which the Church pronounces
on the Jesuit Order can and will cover my own unfavour-
able judgment ; or, I do not succeed, i.e. the doubts are
transformed from temptations into truths, into certain
recognition ; and then I must leave the Church and the
Order, must put off my faith and my priesthood.

The troubles I then experienced were dutifully revealed
in the Confessions and Statements of Conscience to my
Superior and spiritual Director, but even here I did not
reveal their real background and true character. I did
not tell them that the doubts were no longer merely cruel
and grievous temptations to me, but that I had already
begun to see in them the truth. I did not tell, in particular,
that enthusiasm for the Order was completely extinguished
within me, and that my remaining or not remaining in
it depended on the fate of my doubts. It was insincerity,
or rather a lack of complete sincerity. But even a man
unjustly imprisoned does not reveal to his jailers the
means of his liberation. Speech and openness would have
been forged into locks and bolts which would have made
my departure impossible.

And then ! — this much was clear to me, even at that
time. The Jesuit handling of confession and Jesuit
Statement of Conscience are wrong. For confession exists
only for the purpose of declaring sins, and the Order has
no right to lay bare men’s souls by the Statement of
Conscience. My silence was therefore justified and com-
prehensible, from a religious and human standpoint.

When in July, 1890, my Tertiate was at an end, I too
was almost at the end of my struggle. Work, suffering,
and prayer had produced no change of disposition. My
doubts had grown almost into certainty. I left the
peaceful house of Portico with the consciousness that
the breach must and would be accomplished — that the
end was close at hand.

416

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

THE END

For more than two years afterwards I still stood at
the edge of the precipice, wandering to and fro beside it,
and stumbling, before I could summon up determination
to take the leap, not into the gulf below, but right across
it to the other side where, separated by the deep chasm,
I could set firm foot on new ground in a new world.

I refrain from trying to give a psychological explanation
of this long hesitation. Perhaps it is altogether inexplic-
able, and one of the unintelligible things which arise from
the lowest depths of the soul, uncomprehended even by
the individual himself.

The elements of a possible solution of this apparently
insoluble riddle are to be found in the forty years of my
Catholic, Ultramontane and Jesuit past, in the thought of
my family, and the effect of my exit on the Catholic
world ; and finally, in my fear of the step to be under-
taken, which at that time appeared to me a leap in the dark.
For the new land of which I have spoken, on the other
side of the abyss, was at that time scarcely perceived by
me. True, I longed for it, but I had not yet a hopeful
belief in the possibility of reaching it and still less any
clear comprehension of its nature.

On some sides I shall be reproached with having so long
continued to play the hypocrite by living outwardly as a
Catholic and a Jesuit and priest, while inwardly I no longer
possessed the religious basis for these three offices.

In the first place, I reply, special spiritual experiences
are not so simply disposed of, and it is not possible to take
a calendar and watch in one’s hand, and determine the
day and the hour when Catholic thought and sentiment
were finally dismissed, and the opposite views adopted all
ready-made. The road of knowledge always winds in
curves and spirals, like the mountain roads, which cross

The Tertiate and the End 417

steep passes and climb up to mountain summits. Many
years after my breach with Rome had been accomplished,
I still discovered in myself Catholic views, and I found
it difficult to uproot them from my mind. Our mother’s
milk remains long with us. Home and education are
powerful forces, and fourteen years’ membership of the
Jesuit Order is an iron clamp which seizes on the inner-
most depths of the soul.

Even when the will to loosen all bonds and hindrances
has long existed, the hesitation as to the time and mode
of loosening them is not hypocrisy, but lack of clearness
and explicable consideration.

Further, I reply, hypocrisy is a matter which I alone
have to settle with my own conscience. It concerns no
one else at all. For no one has been in any way wronged
by my action. My duty towards others was, as I have
already shown, performed up to the last, even though I
was a hypocritical priest and a hypocritical Jesuit. For
others I was to the very last that which I seemed to them
to be.

"VVhat this long hesitation cost me I need not say, nor,

indeed, can I. The cry of a despairing soul, resounding

through thousands of years : “ Out of the depths have I

cried unto thee, 0 Lord. Lord, hear my voice !” was

constantly on my lips during that last period. And how

earnestly I sent it upwards — how I cried and prayed !

Words fail to describe the miserv in which I lived.

•/

And yet there was no one to whom I could tell my
sufferings ! For, as I have already explained, silence as
to my inner struggles was necessary, else the possibility
of freedom would have been cut off. I am absolutely
certain that, had I spoken, the gates of a lunatic asylum
would have closed on me for life.

During my connection with the Order, numerous
members of the German Province disappeared behind the

2 B

4i 8 Fourteen Years a Jesuit

walls of a lunatic asylum in Belgium, close to the little
town of Diest, near Louvain. The institution, the name
of which I have forgotten, belonged to a fraternity of
“ Brothers of Mercy.” There was no State control over
admission, and thus no difficulty in the way of disposing
of inconvenient individuals.

This fact is not altered by the circumstance that many
Jesuits leave the Order without being interfered with.
My case was a different one. I was a priest ; and I wished
to leave, not only the Order, but also the Church. Even
silent acquiescence in this twofold apostasy would have
greatly injured the Order, especially on account of the
name which I bore, and the respect that I had already
attained in wide Catholic circles. The Jesuit Order has
never been soft-hearted, and in order to maintain its
reputation, it shrinks from nothing ; its ethical principles
would have found no objection to declaring me insane on
account of my opinions, and the logical consequences
would have resulted : that conveniently open Belgian
lunatic asylum would have housed me for the rest of
my life. Such prospects for the future were bound to
close my lips.

It was, therefore, impossible for me to leave the Order
in a so-called legitimate fashion ; that is, to ask for dis-
missal in the usual manner. Only the illegitimate road
remained open.

For this road I required the means, of subsistence, and
was obliged to have money. In spite of the vow of poverty
and the renunciation of fortune, I was still, even according
to canonical right, the owner of my share of our patrimony,
which was managed by my elder brother. Legally I was
therefore entitled to a fortune, and I was certain of its
actual possession for the future, but for the moment I
could not touch my property ; for the day I revealed
myself to my family, the Order would at once have been

The Tertiate and the End 419

acquainted with it. Besides this, as my mother and
family were so well disposed to Ultramontanism and the
Jesuits, they would have made the greatest difficulties,
and a long-drawn-out conflict would have resulted, to which
at that time my nerves were not equal. The explanation
with my family, as well as the financial arrangements,
could only take place after the decisive step had been
taken.

Three accidents came to my aid.

When the Jesuit Fah, with whom, as far as was possible
in the Order, a kind of friendly relation connected me,
was transferred to Brazil, he begged me to collect some
money from relations and acquaintances to purchase
books for the Brazilian Settlement. Some hundreds of
marks (between 400 and 500) had been collected by me,
and I had deposited them, as I was bound to do, with the
Procurator of the German Province, the Jesuit Caduff.
This sum I must now make use of. As I was certain that
I could repay it afterwards out of my own fortune, I felt
myself entirely justified in using it in my necessity. Cer-
tainly I did it with a necessary lie, by telling the Jesuit
Caduff that I was now able to buy books with that sum.
Without this lie I should not have got the money. But I
never even came into the position of having to use other
people’s money. The second accident enabled me to put
my hand on my own.

I was ordered to Blyenbeck, in order to hold a discourse
in the little town of Goch, on the Lower Khine, situated
quite close to that place. It was my last public appearance
in Catholic circles, by the side of Lieber, the leader of the
Centre Party. I found it difficult enough. But it ap-
peared to me a fortunate circumstance. For Blyenbeck
was my father’s property. There was my brother’s
exchequer, where I could draw money from my own pro-
perty which was standing at my brother’s account ;

420

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

this could be taken into consideration afterwards when
we settled our accounts, and subtracted from the total
belonging to me ; which, as a matter of fact, was done.
But now I already had the money collected for the Jesuit
Fah. I dared not give it back to the Procurator.
My inner excitement and disturbance were so great that
the slightest circumstance and the smallest intervention
might lead to the discovery of my condition and my
intentions. And it was my freedom from life-long servi-
tude that was at stake. So I did not give back the money
in person, but placed it in an envelope, wrote upon it
“ For the Brazilian Mission,” and left it, on my departure,
with all the rest of my papers, in the open drawer of my
writing table.*

I now had the means for attaining freedom. But how
could I hasten on its hour ? The third accident came
to my aid.

A few days before Christmas, 1892, I received a com-
mission to render assistance to the pastor of a parish not
far from Miinchen-Gladbach. This was the desired oppor-
tunity for leaving Exaeten openly. To escape secretly in
the night, perhaps through a window, was repugnant to
me ; not to mention that I might easily have been dis-
covered, and then my fate would have been sealed. So
on the 16th December, 1892 (I think this was the day,
but am not quite certain), I stepped across the threshold

* Ultramontane Jesuit calumny many years ago spread the report that I had
taken away the money and failed to return it. It is possible this lie may again
be revived. It is, of course, impossible for me to refute it, if the Jesuits assert
that after my departure the money was not found among my papers. Those who
can believe me capable of stealing a few hundred marks will not be convinced
by me. But two facts may be adduced: 1. As soon as I obtained possession of
my property I sent the Procurator of the Order, the Jesuit Caduff, 150 marks
from Berlin, as compensation for the old clothes I was wearing, and obliged to take
away with me from Exaeten. 2. In 1896, three years after I left the Order, the
Jesuit Fah wrote me a very friendly letter from Brazil, in which he thanked me
for collecting money for his mission, and said that it had been spent on books
for him.

The Tertiate and the End

421

of Exaeten in broad daylight, apparently on a commission
for the Order — in reality trampling it and its laws under-
foot.

I went to Cologne. I revealed myself to a lawyer
there. I gave him letters to the Order, and to my mother,
in which I declared the irrevocability of my step, since I
had lost my faith in the truth of the Catholic doctrine ; bound
him over to keep my address in a foreign country secret ;
and, after exchanging the garb of a secular priest for a
suit of lay clothes, bought ready-made, set out for Paris.
But, first of all, I had to set the mind of the priest, to
whom I had been sent, at rest about my non-appearance, so
that he might not perhaps send a telegram to Exaeten,
and thus make known my flight before I had crossed the
frontier and the letters handed to the lawyer for delivery
had reached their destination. So I telegraphed to the
priest that the promised supply could not come, and in
order to arouse no suspicion, I signed the telegram with
the name of the Jesuit Superior Fischer, who had promised
to send the supply.

The crime of forging the telegram I gladly admit, and
rejoice, even at this day, that I boldly tore through a
little wire thread (the consideration of sending off such a
telegram with a false signature), else this thread might
easily have grown into an iron fetter.

I remained in Paris under an alias taken from one of
my ’ father’s estates until I received the news that my
family was ready to arrange the money matters. The
provisional settlement took place at the beginning of
January, 1893, in Cologne, with the assistance of the Bank
of Deichmann.

I took up my residence at first at Frankfort-on-
the-Main. There the final settlement of property took
place, when I handed over to my younger brother a
capital of forty thousand marks (£2,000), which he declared

422 Fourteen Years a Jesuit

he could no longer do without. He had owned it ever since
my entrance into the Order, with my consent, on the
assumption that I should remain permanently in the
Order, and regarded and treated it as his own property.

The terrible excitement of this last period brought on
a long and serious illness, of which I was only cured by a
residence of some months in Heligoland, from May to
August, 1893. Returned from Heligoland, I took up my
permanent residence in Berlin.

How often have I been reproached, publicly and
privately, by Catholic Ultramontanes, who say : “ You
broke your vows ; you committed perjury.” Even evan-
gelical circles have manifested their disapproval of the
“ apostate Jesuit,” the “ recreant priest.”

It is surely more than obvious that after fourteen years
of conscientious life in the Order and six years’ priesthood,
the questions of apostasy, recreancy, and perjury should
have occurred seriously to myself. But I took little time
to decide them, so simple are they.

The vows of an Order, and the state of the priesthood,
are adopted in the belief of serving God and thus entering
into a specially close relation to Him. When this belief
is recognised to be erroneous, in that same moment the
vows of the Order and the priesthood are cancelled. They
were errors, just as the foundation on which they were
based was itself an error, and a man is fully entitled to
cast such errors away.

That evangelical circles too are often subject to such
prejudices, is due to their contemptible traditional depend-
ence on the Catholic ultramontane point of view. The
fact of the apostate monk and recreant priest, Luther,
strangely enough, seems to make no impression on such
evangelicals.

CHAPTER XXIX

GENERAL VERDICT ON THE JESUIT ORDER

An appreciation of the Jesuit Order must proceed from
two different standpoints : the Order as a religious ultra-
montane institution must be judged from the religious
point of view, and the association of men to attain
certain ends here on earth, independent of religion, must
be judged from the human point of view. To distinguish
sharply between the two is not easy, but as far as possible
it should be done. Since the whole ultramontane Catholic
system of orders, with its vows and its special state of an
order, must be designated as a departure from Christianity
and a distortion of its religious outlines, this general
verdict applies also to the Jesuit Order. Indeed, it ap-
plies specially here, for the Jesuit Order has peculiarities
which are reprehensible even from the Catholic standpoint.

Its blind obedience, its “ Statement of Conscience,”
its system of espionage and levelling, its training to
denunciation, its misuse of confession, and many other
peculiarities, are immoral institutions which Catholic
Christianity too should repudiate, and in former times
would doubtless have repudiated. That the Jesuit Order,
which came into being in the sixteenth century, was not
so repudiated, that, on the contrary, its Constitutions,
though abounding in such immoralities, were approved
by the Popes, is a proof to what extent at that time and,
indeed, much earlier, the Papacy and Church were infected
and dominated by Ultramontanism.

423

424 Fourteen Years a Jesuit

The monasticism of the Theban and Libyan deserts
knew none of these things, nor yet did Benedict of Nursia,
the first founder of the Western convents. The more
recent founders of orders, St. Dominic and St. Francis,
did not introduce into their foundations this intellectual
and religious slavery and bondage, enveloped in a garb
of religious Christianity. To make these the basis of
Christian perfection was left to the Jesuit Order. By its
example and agency the innumerable later foundations
of male and, above all, female orders were equipped
with these monstrous excrescences. The plague of an
anti-Christian dependence, which rages there in devastating
fashion, and deprives many thousands of their inherited
and divinely appointed freedom, the “ freedom of Chris-
tianity,” is of Jesuit origin.

In another essential point too the Jesuit Order differs
in religious matters unfavourably from the old Catholic
Orders, the Benedictines, Augustinians, Franciscans, and
Dominicans.

While among these the original religious enthusiasm
mounted upwards in a brightly flaming fire to heaven at
their foundation, while evangelical poverty and evangeli-
cal chastity — their celebrated triumphs, which surpassed
human nature and violated Christianity, but for all that
were heroic — were maintained for decades, almost cen-
turies, in a state of “ first youth,” while their ecstatic
zeal never grew cold, and the “ first fruits of the Spirit,” even
though falsely understood, never ceased to mature, in the
Jesuit Order from the very beginning everything was
attuned to sobriety and calculation ; there was no “ first
youth,” no “ first fruits of the Spirit.”

The founder of the Jesuit Order, Ignatius Loyola,
though as a man and a saint he was a visionary and
hysterical enthusiast, was prudence personified as the
founder of an order. The Constitutions, written, at any

General Verdict on the Jesuit Order 425

rate for the greater part, by him, are calculated from
beginning to end for temporal success, power, and influence
over men. Ecstatic impetus, inward enthusiasm and
religious warmth are lacking. Where they appear to be
present, they are merely external adornment, applied in
order to disguise the calculated sobriety.

The Scripture saying, “ By their fruits ye shall
know them,” condemns the Jesuit Order as a religious
institution. The blessing of God, which according to the
faithful Catholic conception — the conception which is
decisive in judging the religious side of the Jesuit Order
— must rest on the work of a divinely sanctioned
Order, does not rest on the work of the Society of
Jesus.

I have already, in the chapter on the Jesuit System
of Education, referred to the absence of permanent
results — a proof, surely, of the absence of God’s blessing —
in the main activity of the Order, the education of youth.
Outward splendour and useless show are the main fruits
of Jesuit activity, but, like everything external, the
splendour and show soon fade away. The words of
Piaget’s criticism* should be read, too, for it shows clearly
the fiasco of the Jesuit Order.

Again, the words of the Jesuit Cordara, already quoted,

* Essai sur V Organisation de la Compagnie de Jesus (Paris, 1893), pp. 235 et seq.
After commenting on the failure of the Jesuits to achieve any lasting results in
their missions to the heathen, and their efforts to check the spread of Protestantism,
Piaget asks this question : “ What is the cause of this failure at the end of so
much apparent success ? I may be mistaken, but it seems to me that Jesuitism
was nowhere a true religious awakening, a revival of sincere piety, which alone
could have supplied a lasting foundation for its work.” In regard to the revival
of pious works, to be attributed to the influence of Jesuit confessors, he asks :
** But did the overwhelming influence they attained lessen or even check the
loose morality of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries ? Must wo not rather
say that immorality made way in those very classes of the population which w r ere
trained in their schools ? Strangely enough, it was the very generation that was
trained up by the Jesuits w hich rose against them and procured their suppression.”
The complete passage is quoted in the chapter on the ” Suppression of the Order ”
in the German edition of this book.

426

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

on the arrogance of the Order are a strong indictment of
the chief cause of Jesuit failure.

Cordara’s criticism was written at the end of the
eighteenth century, when the Order had had two hundred
and fifty years of work, including its best period, and he
designated the suppression of the Society of Jesus as a
Divine judgment on the pride which is so hateful to
God. It would be impossible to bring a more serious
indictment against the worth of a religious order. And
from a purely human standpoint it is natural that the
Jesuits should in part suppress and in part falsify the
words of their distinguished fellow- Jesuit. For their
undeniable failure they can find other causes than the
rejection by God as a punishment for arrogance. The
malice of men ! It is just because the Jesuit Order is so
holy, so well-pleasing to God, that it suffers in a special
degree the fate of all saints, “ the hatred and persecution
of godless men.” The Society of Jesus fares as did Jesus
Himself — how often have I heard this said ! — “ The servant
is not greater than his master. If they have persecuted
Me, they will also persecute you.”

Not one single Mea Culpa is to be found in the four
hundred years’ history of the Jesuit Order. For that
uttered by Cordara was not official, nor meant for publicity,
not even for the Order itself. It was recorded after the
suppression of the Order in the secrecy of a document
intended only for his brother.

The very fact that the Jesuit Order proclaims its
absolute immaculacy in so bombastic and boastful a
fashion, transcending the bounds of the permissible (as
shown, for instance, in the work Imago primi saeculi), as
though it were enunciating a dogma, is so un-Christian,
so irreligious, that it alone would suffice to condemn the
Order as a religious and Christian institution. For the
words placed by Christ in the mouth of the Pharisee,

General Verdict on the Jesuit Order 427

“ God, I thank thee that I am not as other men are,
or even as this publican,” should express the strongest
contrast to the religious and moral conception of Christ.
Yet these very words are the fundamental note of all the
manifestations of the Society of Jesus.

Strong contrasts to the teaching of Jesus are also to
be found in other important points, particularly in the
domain of morals. Some of these I have discussed in the
chapter on Jesuit Morality.

Further, what could be more irreligious and, therefore,
unchristian than the Jesuit piety of the Exercises, which
sets aside the individual and substitutes for it a
mechanical type ? This is one of the greatest crimes
which the Jesuit Order commits against the human being,
as I have already shown.

Thus Jesus and the Society of Jesus, religion and the
Jesuit Order, stand in sharpest contrast to one another.
Only the ignorance of Catholics, and their bias in favour
of ultramontane Jesuit views, explain the fact that the
strong contrasts are not recognised. The light which has
dawned on individual Catholics must dawn on all. But
the first condition of this is to subdue Ultramontanism
in the hierarchy. For this ultramontanised Papacy and
Episcopacy supply the strongest support for Jesuitism,
because in its turn Jesuitism is also the bulwark of Ultra-
montanism and its hierarchy; and this brings us to the
consideration of the Jesuit Order as an association of
human beings destined to pursue here on earth purely
human aims which, however much they may be embel-
lished by religion and Christianity, are in reality far removed
from both.

When the Jesuit Order came into being, a fatal hour
had struck for the Papacy. The movement originated by
Luther, in connection with other causes, had caused the
ship of St. Peter to rock dangerously. A world with a

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

428

new philosophy of life was coming into view, which no
longer recognised the Pope-God of the Middle Ages, the
sovereign Lord of the whole world in that capacity.
Ultramontanism which, since Gregory VII., had been firmly
established in its seat, and was ruling the world, in par-
ticular the political world, from Rome, under religious
forms, felt the onset of the new age, whence the cry,
“ Free from Rome,” was already resounding.

Then the threatened Papacy found in the Jesuit Order
an ultramontane auxiliary regiment of extraordinary
power and pertinacity. The Papal dominion was to be
re-established. The ultramontane system, with its secular
and political kernel disguised under a garb of religion,
was concentrated, as it were, in the Constitutions of the
Jesuit Order, and even more in its well calculated labours
directed from central points. Words and deeds, teaching
and example, of the new Order, were a single great pro-
paganda for the ultramontane Papacy. The doctrine of
the “ direct ” — that is, the immediate dominion of the
Vicar of Christ over the whole world — had become
untenable ; the Jesuit Order (e.g. Bellarmin and Suarez)
replaced it completely by the doctrine of the “ indirect ”
power.

There is not the least fraction of religion in this
doctrine. Everything in it is irreligious and anti-Christian,
but it is quite specially calculated for religious display,
for it makes a pretence of God’s Kingdom, which embraces
this world and the next, which tolerates only one supreme
ruler — God and His Vicar — and thus makes this com-
prehensive political universal dominion an acceptable,
even desirable, religious demand in the eyes of Catholics.
The love of dominion implanted in the Jesuit Order finds
the greatest possibility of development in this doctrine,
hence its never-resting zeal in trying to raise the indirect
power of the Papacy to a fundamental dogma of Church

General Verdict on the Jesuit Order 429

policy. The Order, as such, cannot openly aspire to
universal do mini on ; however powerful its equipment may
be, it must always appear as a mere auxiliary member, a
subordinate part of the Catholic whole, the Papal Church ;
the more it furthers the temporal political power of Home
and extends the religious belief in its justification among
men, the more political power will it attain itself ; the
Papacy and its indirect power serve but as a screen
behind which are concealed the Jesuit Order and its
aspirations for power. By its zeal and skill it becomes
an indispensable servant of the Papacy, and thus acquires
direct dominion over the wearers of the Papal crown,
and through them indirect dominion over the whole
world.

Hence the continuous and detailed occupation with
politics, forbidden by the , Constitutions as unreligious,
but which became its most comprehensive sphere of
activity by the religious road of confession.

It was this very political activity of the Order which
let loose the storm against it. And, as I have already
shown, it was in the first instance the Catholic courts,
at which the Jesuit confessor had carried on his religious
activity for centuries, which demanded more and more
eagerly the suppression of the Order, and finally attained
it from Clement XI Y. They felt that here, in the Jesuit
Order, a power was rising which would gain the mastery
over them. Claudius Acquaviva, the fifth General, gave
to this political power, working in the religious atmosphere
of the confessional, the form still valid at the present day,
by means of a secret Instruction, which, as its discoverer,
the Benedictine Dudik says, “ shows quite clearly the
ultimate aim the Jesuits tried to attain through their
confessors — dominion over the Catholic Church, such as
Gregory and Innocent and Boniface strove to attain.”

But has the Jesuit Order not performed conspicuous

430

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

services for the Catholic religion ? Are not the successes
of the counter-Reformation in the main its work ? There,
surely, it was not a question of universal dominion, but of
universal religion.

Doubtless the counter-Reformation was in the main the
work of the Jesuit Order, but for that very reason it also
bears the stamp of its spirit, and is characterised by
measures of violence, even by blood and iron. The lost
Papal dominion was to be restored. Religion took a
second place, or rather supplied the cloak which was to
conceal the craving for rule, and to sanctify the use of
violent measures. We need only remember the words of
the Jesuit Bobadilla,* one of the trusted comrades of
Ignatius Loyola, to understand the nature and goal of the
counter-Reformation, as conducted by the Jesuit Order.

The Jesuit Order, therefore, stands before us as the
embodiment of a system which aims at temporal political
dominion through temporal political means, embellished
by religion, which assigns to the head of the Catholic
religion — the Roman Pope — the role of a temporal over-
lord, and under shelter of the Pope-King, and using him
as an instrument, desires itself to attain the dominion over
the whole world.

That opinion is not only mine — that of the renegade,
the apostate Jesuit — good Catholics too, who otherwise
praise the Jesuit Order, advocate it strongly.

Thus, for instance. Reinhold Baumstark says : “ For
beyond all facts stands the decisive circumstance that
Jesuitism cannot rise above one point of view, that of the
temporal political power and external compulsion.”!

From these efforts, directed for its own benefit and

* P. 383.

f Schicksala tines deutschen Katholiken (Strassburg, 1885), Second Ed., p. 91.
Baumstark was for many years Leader of the Baden Catholics in the Second
Chamber at Karlsruhe. He died in 1900 as President of the Provincial Court at
Mannheim.

General Verdict on the Jesuit Order 431

towards its own power, may be explained the twofold
attitude of the Jesuit Order towards the Papacy ; loudly
emphasised submission which even takes the form of a
special vow,* and harsh insubordination as soon as the
Papacy opposes the special interests of the Order, above
all, its attempt at rule. Then, as a matter of course,
the reverence for bishops and cardinals also disappears.
If the Vicar of Christ be set on one side, how should any
regard be paid to the “ successors of the Apostles ” ?

The Jesuit greed for power also explains another
phenomenon, conspicuous through the whole history of
the Order — its incessant quarrels with other religious
organisations. Wherever the Order sets its foot, there
peace ends and the struggle for existence begins. Its
own churches are to be full, its own confessionals besieged,
its own teachings in dogma and morality are to give the
lead — in short, it desires to rule alone. The immeasurable
arrogance, the inconsiderate and contemptible attitude
towards other orders, those truly irreligious peculiarities
of the Order which the Jesuit Cordara designated as the
causes of its rejection by God, are the natural consequences
of its unbridled greed for dominion.

The Jesuit Order has attained many successes by its
temporal political efforts. The courts of Vienna, Munich,
Paris, Madrid, Lisbon, and for a time of London too, to
say nothing of smaller ones, were for a long time com-
pletely subject to it. But even these purely worldly
successes lacked endurance and magnitude. Through the
Jesuit confessors of the German Emperor and the French,
Spanish and Portuguese Kings in the sixteenth and seven-
teenth centuries, and their almost unlimited influence,
the whole of Europe might have been subjected for
generations to the Order. Instead of this, the political
influence of the confessors is frittered away in a variety

* In the vow taken by the Professed of four vows.

432

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

of intrigues, in small disputes which, though all directed
to the increase of Jesuit power and dominion, still univer-
sally lack statesmanship on a large scale and effective
unity. The Jesuit confessors have always been political
intriguers, never and nowhere statesmen. Therefore, in
influential positions held continuously for several centuries,
they have caused disturbance, confusion, and breaches of
peace ; they have increased the outward splendour and
glory of their Order and filled its coffers, but they cannot
point to a single political action with an effect on the
present and the future, nor a single far-reaching successful
undertaking in the domain of universal politics, in the
centre of which they carried on their labours. The Jesuit
Order has always fished in troubled waters, and harvested
the small gains connected with small undertakings ; the
results that can only be attained in the clearness of great
endeavour are completely missing in its political ledger,
although the most powerful rulers of their day are entered
there as its devoted and politically obedient penitents.

Whence comes this failure ? In the first place, from
the same cause which led to its religious failures.

The politics of the Order did not penetrate far enough.
They were directed too much towards securing quicldv
attainable momentary successes which should shed fresh
glory around the external position of the Order. Here too
it was appearance, and not reality. But the deeper reason
is the following, which at the same time reveals the weak-
ness and strength of the Order in general.

The Jesuit Order does not train men to independent
thought and independent action. It trains machines,
which let themselves be used without reason and will,
like corpses and sticks. The Jesuit aim, in the education
of the members of its Order and others, is the destruction
of the individual, the levelling away of all originality.
Its Exercises, to which it subjects men of all classes, are

General Verdict on the Jesuit Order 433

the great planing machines through which human beings
are enslaved in their minds and made dependent. The
sinew of individuality there receives a fatal blow, and that
not only in religious respects, but in general.

I have already described the effect of the Jesuit educa-
tional system on the Jesuit himself, and shown how it
produces mechanical routine and easy mobility, and thus
turns the individual into a smoothly gliding ball which
yields silently to every impulse. But this deprives the
Jesuit of the first condition for successful and permanent
work — the impetus of his individual peculiarity. His
work is all on the surface. Smoothly gliding balls trace
no deep furrows, they leave only light, easily effaceable
marks. The possibility of enormous activity in the most
varied fields, of quick movement hither and thither, of
incessant beginning and ceasing, now here, now there, is
supplied by the pliable routine of the individual Jesuit.
And as the history of the Order shows, this possibility
has, in the most conspicuous manner, become a fact.
No other institution has given so much cause for discussion
in so comparatively short a time, nor been active in so
many different directions. All Europe, half Asia and
America, have become the field of its activity. In all
possible positions and offices we see Jesuits employed.
But nowhere has even a single Jesuit shown himself a
truly great man, with a far-seeing outlook and enduring
activity. And for this reason — because every Jesuit lacks
personality — he is a wheel of a machine, not a human
being thinking freely, acting freely, and creating values
of his own.

This is true of all ranks of the Order, of the General
and the Superiors as well as the lower spiritual and tem-
poral coadjutors.

This complete lack of personality, the deliberate and
necessary consequence of Jesuit education, is not balanced

434 Fourteen Years a Jesuit

by the heroic devotion to definite tasks, which is certainly
not lacking in the Jesuit. For Jesuit devotion and self-
sacrifice is and remains the devotion and self-sacrifice of a
machine, which also wears itself out, which does its duty
and lets itself be used to the very last of its powers, but
which in all this performs no individual, but only a
mechanical task. The Jesuit does not devote himself to
his allotted labours in the first instance from the interest
he feels in them — the ascetic discipline of his Order enjoins
on him sacred indifference in regard to every kind of
work — no, he acts, and acts in this particular way, because
he constitutes this particular wheel in the great machine
which perhaps in the very next hour will be changed
for another by the hand of the Superior ; he works
zealously, because obedience for the moment has set
him at this particular point of the machine’s activity,
which he will perhaps have to exchange to-morrow for
another. “ One foot in the air,” as my Novice-Master,
the Jesuit Meschler, used to characterise the fundamental
attitude of a Jesuit at work, does not assist us to accom-
plish anything great and permanent in any domain. For
this we require permanence of place and the possibility
of striking root, absorption in the occupation and, above
all, the consciousness of being set tasks for life, not merely
temporary experiments which at any moment if it seem
good to the Superior, must be exchanged for another
occupation.

As a Jesuit is unfitted even by his education in the
Order to become a powerful implement for lasting and
individual labours, the lack of aptitude is transferred, if
not in so marked a degree, to all who submit to his influence,
all whom he educates. They too suffer more or less in
their individuality, lose a good part of their independence
and power of decision. The many thousands who, in all
classes and professions, are attached to the Jesuit Order,

General Verdict on the Jesuit Order 435

are pliant implements in its hand, but for that very reason
lack the requisites for great and enduring results — initiative
and independence.

It is undeniable that we here meet with the weakness
of the Order, and it appears conspicuously in the notorious
lack of enduring success, in spite of favourable oppor-
tunities, in the history of the Order.

But here also lies the strength of the Jesuit Order.
Its education produces a similarity among its members,
a uniformity of activity which cannot be surpassed, and
which is a guarantee for those results which can be attained
through its mechanical and automatic methods.

The ball can roll in any direction, into any corner,
however small; the Jesuit, with no will of his own, but
obeying blindly, can adapt himself without difficulty ; he
changes his place again and again, and brings to all the
same trained and superficial skill. I have often spoken
of the Jesuit mass ; here we find it. Human beings with
their individual differences have vanished ; a light and
mobile army, battalions drawn up in rank and file, march
in equal step in their place. The persons who stand
outside the Order but submit to its guidance belong also
to the Jesuit mass — they are a column that can be directed
by a single word.

Thus the Jesuit mass permeates the whole world,
young and old, men and women, untold, innumerable
“ congregations.” It is clear that this is a cause of
strength, in spite of the weakness which in another
direction is combined with it. Indeed the strength is far
greater than the weakness. For mankind cannot tolerate
continuous violent rule and violent impressions for ever.
For them the commonplace is the rule, controlled by the
smooth working of small events and impressions. Those
who understand how to guide men silently and quietly,
to put them in leading strings without their noticing it,

436

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

become their masters more certainly than the revolutionary
warrior or statesman.

That brings us to the question : Is the Jesuit Order
dangerous, and to what extent ?

Here is my answer : For the individual human being,
for State and Religion (I purposely do not say “ Church,”
for it is not only not harmful to the Church, but even
very useful), the Jesuit Order is one of the most dangerous
institutions which has ever existed. For it destroys that
which is most valuable in men — moral and intellectual
independence. After what I have already said, there is
no need to explain this in further detail.

In this system of dependence lies the danger that
threatens true religion and genuine Christianity from the
Jesuit Order. The reproach that is brought against the
Romish Church in general, that it sets its official hier-
archical personages and its sacraments and sacramental
offices and ceremonies between God and man, that it
has elevated religious tutelage into a dogma — in short,
tries to check free intercourse between man and God as
far as possible : this worst of all religious reproaches is
incurred in the strongest manner by the Jesuit system.
The Jesuit and the man who submits to Jesuit direction
are in reality slaves, who approach the world beyond
and God — that is, may only take part in religion — in the
way in which the piety and asceticism of the Order permits.
They must renounce even the last remnant of religious
freedom. They must be accessible, to the very depths of
their soul, not to God, but to the Superior of their Order,
and to him alone. This too requires no further proof
after the detailed expositions I have given on the subject.

What about the danger of the Jesuit Order to the
State ? It is many-sided and far-reaching.

In the first place, we must remember the fundamen-
tal constitutional dogma of the Jesuit Order — complete

General Verdict on the Jesuit Order 437

dependence of the State on the Church ; its obligation
to fashion itself and its life according to the laws of the
Church. Numerous quotations from Jesuit authorities,*
and among them the present General of the Order, go to
prove that from this fundamental dogma may be deduced
the doctrine that it is permissible and meritorious to
disobey the laws of the State which are opposed to the
laws of the Church, and in case of punishment for such
breaches of law to be indemnified from the State Treasury.

Even active resistance to Government officials is per-
mitted. And the most simple circumstance which throws
a strong light on the danger to the State of such doctrines
is, that they are to be found in books which expressly
serve as directions for attending the confessional. The
fact that their chief advocate is the German Jesuit Lehm-
kuhl, the political theological councillor of the Centre
Party, gives them an increased importance for Germany.!

* Some of these are given in the chapter on Jesuit Morality.

t It is right, however, to emphasise the fact that Lehmkuhl’s theses are the
hereditary doctrines of the Jesuit Order : the twentieth century in them meets the
sixteenth and seventeenth. I have already referred to the Jesuits Bellarmin and
Suarez as the most celebrated theoretical advocates of the indirect power of the
Church over the State. Two other Jesuits, also belonging to the early days of
the Order, and among the members most actively concerned in politics, whom
we have already encountered in this activity — Parsons and Garnet — may also
be mentioned, because the teaching of one almost coincides with that of Lehmkuhl.

“ One necessary condition required in every law is that it be just ; for, if this
condition be wanting, that the law be unjust, then it is, t pso facto , void and of
no force, neither hath it any power to oblige any. . . . Hereupon ensueth that
no power on earth can forbid or punish any action, which we are bound unto
by the law of God, so that the laws against recusants [the English Oath of Allegiance
was in question], against receiving of priests, against mass, and other rites of
Catholic religion are to be esteemed as no laws by such as steadfastly believe
these to be necessary observances of the true religion. . . . Being asked what I
meant by 1 true treason,’ I answer, that is a true treason which is made treason
by any just law ; and that is no treason at all which is made treason by an unjust
law.” — Jardine, p. 235.

And the Jesuit Parsons, of many names and devices, in his book, Elizabethac
Angliae Beginae haeresim Calvinianum propugnantis saevissimum in Catholicos sui
regni edictum , says : “The universal school of Catholic theologians and canonists
hold (and it is certain and of faith) that any Christian prince who manifestly

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

438

But even this attitude towards the authority and
sovereignty of the State does not satisfy them. The
Jesuit Order is the sworn foe of the modern State and all
its educational functions.

This is surely and strikingly demonstrated in the
12th decree of the 23rd General Congregation, of the
year 1883. Here the Order asserts that it abides by
the Encyclical of Pius IX., Quanta cura, of December 8th,
1864, and the Syllabus of the same date, and emphatically
designates as “ plagues ” the “ errors ” condemned in
these two documents. But this Encyclical Quanta cura
and the Syllabus are the most comprehensive declarations
of war against all the foundations and achievements of
the modern State education and civilisation. Since, then,
the Jesuit Order does not content itself with giving its
silent assent to the Papal ultramontane declaration of
war, “ which would be a matter of course for every ultra-
montane Catholic,” but gives it in the most solemn manner
through its General Congregation, it expresses its deadly
hatred towards the modern State in a specially ostentatious
maimer, within twenty years after the publication of the
Encyclical and Syllabus. Like the ultramontane Papacy
in the Syllabus, the Jesuit Order too says : “ I cannot
be reconciled, nor agree with, progress, liberalism, and
modern civilisation.”

True, the Jesuit Order makes use of the attainments
of progress, liberalism, and civilisation. True, it clothes
itself in modern garb, and apparently takes part in all
domains of civilisation ; but under its modern garb is

swerves from the Catholic religion, and wishes to call others from it, falls at once
from all power and dignity, both by divine right, and before any sentence can be
passed against him by the supreme pastor and judge (the Pope) ; and his subjects
are free from the obligation of any oath of allegiance which they had taken to
him as a legitimate prince ; they may and should (if they have power), expel
from his sovereignty over Christians such a man as an apostate, a heretic. . . .
Now this, the certain, defined and undoubted opinion of the most learned is clearly
conformable and in agreement with the apostolic doctrine.” — Taunton, 148, 149.

General Verdict on the Jesuit Order 439

liidden the bitter opponent, who hates with intensity that
progress the advantages of which he utilises for his own
purposes. So deep, so universal, is the Jesuit hatred for
our modem civilisation that we encounter it even where
we should least expect it, and sometimes in the most
grotesque form. Here is an instance :

The Jesuit Meschler, a former Novice-Master, Rector,
Provincial, and Assistant to the General, consequently a
prominent Jesuit, in the Stimmen aus Maria-Laach, for
October, 1909 (page 568), publishes an article on St.
Ludgerus, first Bishop of Munster, in the eighth
century. His article ends with this characteristic senti-
ment :

“ The civilisation of St. Ludger built hospitals, churches,
and convents ; the civilisation of our day builds barracks,
lima tic asylums, and prisons.” Away then with the
civilisation of the twentieth and let us return to that of
the eighth century !

Special hostility is shown by the Jesuit Order to one
of the sources of civilisation, and one of the most important
institutions of the State as a civilising agent — I mean the
State school.

The Jesuits Wernz (the present General), Laurentius,
Cathrein, von Hammerstein, etc., in their widely read
books and articles, set up the most unlimited demands in
regard to the suzerainty of the Church over the State
schools, and in so doing pour the most opprobrious abuse
on the State and its schools. Thus, for instance, the
Jesuit von Hammerstein writes :

“ The idea of State and school, as conceived and handled by
the modern State and embodied for the last centuries in a large
amount of legislation, is unjust, and that not only in the most
general sense of unfairness, but unjust in the truest signification
of the word — that is, the laws in question lack the foundation of
justice in a great part of their content. They are null and void,

44° Fourteen Years a Jesuit

just as a Socialistic decree, issued by a democratic State, abolishing
all private property, would be null and void. Not only does the
modern school idea deserve the designations ‘ unpractical 5 and
‘ unjust ’ — it also unquestionably merits the further reproach of
being un-Christian. ... On closer examination, we are indeed
actually compelled to bring the reproach of immorality and dis-
honesty against the modern school.” “ If the State abides in
future by its modern school idea, we do not know how we can
acquit it of the reproach of inaugurating a system of hypocrisy on
a large scale. Such a system must in time become the grave of
fidelity, faith, and morality for our youth and the whole people.”
“ The apex of the Prussian school pyramid is the ministry and
minister of public worship and instruction (Kidtusminister). Even
the mere notion of a minister for spiritual affairs on the lines of
the modern school idea is felt to be a declaration of war against
the Catholic Church, and a manifesto in favour of Protestantism.”*

Four sections are devoted by Hammerstein to the
question : “ Can Catholics be expected to entrust their
sons to Prussian State Gymnasia ? ” Of course, he answers
44 No . 55 f

Thus writes the same Jesuit in another book : “ We

should like to set over the gateway of every school which
is not genuinely a Church school these words as the brand
of Cain :

4 Through me the way is to the city dolent ;

Through me the way ; s to eternal dole ;

Through me the way among the people lost.’ J
Hate of the Godhead called me into being.”

Side by side with this school hatred goes denomina-
tional hatred. §

The fundamental condition of civilisation is peaceful
dwelling together, and tolerant collaboration among

* Das preussiscke Schulmonopol , pp. 127, 139, 162, 163.

f Ibid., pp. 165-224.

J Longfellow’s translation of the Inferno.

§ Die Schulfrage , p. 125.

General Verdict on the Jesuit Order 441

different denominations, which the modern State has
admitted into its constitutions as toleration and religious
equality ; * but this is regarded by the Jesuit Order as an
“ abuse,” a “ disease.” I have already given many
proofs of this Jesuit quarrelsomeness. They show that
“ the seeds of hatred are inborn ” [in the Jesuit Order
towards those of other faith], as the Imago primi saeculi
so characteristically expresses it.

Then, finally, there is the docrine of Tyrannicide
which, as is proved by numerous writings of individual
members approved by the Order, has gained a firm footing
in the Jesuit Order. Even the very ambiguous attitude
of General Acquaviva towards these doctrines gives cause
for serious consideration.

My assertion is therefore justified : The constitutional
and political educational doctrines of the Jesuit Order are
the destruction of the modern State, and its destruction
is intended by the Jesuit Order.

Now the danger from such teaching and intention
would in itself not be so very great. What dangerous
theories and intentions has the world not witnessed, and
yet it has continued to proceed on its own course ! But
here, when the Jesuit Order represents these ideas, mat-
ters are entirely different. Here the danger is imminent
because it is founded on the dangerousness of the Order
as such.

Very erroneous ideas are held as to this dangerousness.
It has been sought where it is non-existent, or in but a
small degree ; where it is actually present it has been
overlooked.

The dangerousness of the Order, and its powerful
influence, do not consist in the prominent intelligence of
its members, not even in that of its leaders, the Superiors.
Fourteen years’ intimate acquaintance with members and

* Parildt.

442 Fourteen Years a Jesuit

leaders has taught me that neither class exceeds the
average. Indeed, in some of the Superiors (Rectors and
Provincials) I learned to know men of but moderate
intelligence who, had they stood alone and not been
supported and guided by the traditions and ordinances,
and by an organisation spread over the whole world,
would of themselves have achieved nothing worthy of
note.

I have already characterised in detail the deliberately
fostered dependence of the individual Jesuit as the main
weakness of the Order. But I have shown that this
weakness also constitutes its strength, and this strength
is essentially increased by the manner in which the Order
exercises its activity. This manner, combined with the
marvellous organisation of the Order, is the nucleus of its
power and also of its dangerousness.

In the first instance, the Order utilises the same most
effective means as Ultramontanism. “ Religion ” is the
fair wide cloak with which Jesuitism covers everything,
in which it clothes everything, and which wins for it easy
admission into the heads and hearts of Catholics. By
means of this illusion, the Jesuit Order has reached an
unexampled mastery. There is nothing so earthly, so
worldly, so political, there is no attack on State and
civilisation, which the Jesuit system does not represent,
plausibly too, as “ religious,” as “ lying within the
sphere of religion.” By means of this untruth it replaces
its own weakness, due to its mechanical methods, by the
gigantic force of these religious passions of its adherents.
Jesuits need then only fan the flame which has been
already kindled. But this can be done even by men of
inferior gifts, who have lost their individuality, especially
if they are assisted by a well-planned and far-reaching
organisation.

This is greatly assisted by the secrecy of Jesuit activity.

General Verdict on the Jesuit Order 443

It is excessively cunning, and by no means confined to the
secrecy of the confessional, in which Ultramontanism too
possesses a mighty lever for work in politics and against
enlightenment, carried on under the shelter of darkness.

True, the Jesuit Order has, more than any other
ultramontane institution, contrived to make confession
subserve its own ends ; it has succeeded in attaching
troops of the faithful to its own confessionals. But its
furtive activity extends far beyond the Church and the
confessional.

The Jesuit has become a popular, indispensable spiritual
director in the families of the upper classes, above all
with the women. In this position the most secret activity
becomes easy and safe for him. If we asked the Catholic
families among the nobility of Germany, France, England,
Austria, Spain, Portugal, Italy, as well as numerous
families of the upper ten thousand, which of them has not
a Jesuit as a permanent or occasional spiritual director,
we shall find the number of these to be extremely small.
Although from my youth upwards I was accustomed to
“ domestic Jesuits,” yet when I myself belonged to the
Order and had an insight into its activity, even I was
surprised at the extent of this “ domestic ” activity of
the Order.

In this must also be included its educational activity,
although this apparently is not carried on in secret, since
the numerous “ German ” educational establishments
(Feldkirch, Kalksburg, Freinberg, Stonyhurst, Ordrupshoj,
etc.) stand broad and clear in the light of day, and although
the Jesuit boarding-school presupposes the separation
from home and family, yet a strong and secret influence
penetrates thence into both home and family. For the
Jesuit boarding-schools transform their pupils into the
“ Jesuit mass,” which continues to work silently and
imperceptibly in the families themselves. In the Jesuit

444

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

boarding-schools the pupils are planed and polished who,
when they grow up, extend the Jesuit spirit and thought.
Here too a circular letter to ultramontane editors,
members of Parliament, writers, officials, and so on,
would produce the remarkable result that about 80 per
cent, among them are old Jesuit pupils. The same applies
to numerous landed proprietors in the Rhinelands, West-
phalia, Silesia, Bavaria, Baden, and Wiirtemberg. Many
officers, too, have been educated in Jesuit institutions,
especially at Feldkirch and Kalksburg (both in Austria).

If we add to these the many thousands of Congreganists
in all classes and professions, these genuinely and organic-
ally co-ordinated “ affiliates ” of the Order, we see the
gigantic nexus of circles spread over the whole world,
from the centres of which the Jesuit Order pursues its
activity silently, but with certainty of success. And in
this activity, which sets in motion a pliable mass, permeated
with Jesuit conceptions, lies the power of the Order.

This power is the greater, because the Jesuit Order
is surrounded by a special halo, since it clothes itself in
an atmosphere of glory which raises it in the estimation
of the Catholic masses far above all similar religious
institutions. For the Catholic outside the orders knows
even less than the Jesuit himself of the true history of
the Order. He only knows the bright immaculate picture
which he encounters in the innumerable books and writings
published, in major em Societatis Jesu gloriam. Therefore
he honours in the Jesuit Order, and in the individual
Jesuits, the acme and the highest attainment of Chris-
tianity. The Jesuit Order works by fascination — that is
the right word to use. And this gives it one of the most
effective means for the maintenance and increase of its
influence. Sober consideration certainly deprives the
Order of the false adornments and pretended glory with
which it has surrounded itself. Unfalsified history repre-

General Verdict on the Jesuit Order 445

sents it as an organisation injurious to religion, politics,
society, and civilisation, which endeavours with incon-
siderate egotism to make mankind serviceable to its
selfish ends, and is directed towards their material exploita-
tion and intellectual suppression. But there are great
difficulties in the way of introducing the sober historical
points of view into those circles where the truth about
Jesuitism is most needed, i.e. the Catholic circles ; and
the Jesuit Order has succeeded in transforming these
difficulties into almost insuperable obstacles.

The method employed for the purpose reveals the
whole extent of its unscrupulousness, its cunning, and
therefore its dangerousness.

The belief in the almost immaculate excellence of all
institutions of religious orders and the like, sanctioned by
the Church, is still unshaken among Catholics. This
belief is utilised unscrupulously by the Jesuit Order for
its own advantage, by systematically falsifying history,
and also all the products of free thought. For it is sure of
its public. In these circles everything which the Jesuit
Order sends into the world marked with its stamp is
regarded as indubitable truth — as good and true.

Thus the Order can boldly add calumny to falsification.
Perhaps the only saying of Jesus which the Society of
Jesus realises is this : “ He who is not with Me is against
Me.” It shrinks from no means for making its opponents
harmless. Falsehood and physical violence, calumny and
cunning, are its weapons, which deal fatal blows from its
ambush.

By depriving all kinds of critics and opponents of their
power to injure, unhindered by any qualms of conscience,
the Jesuit Order in the course of centuries has piled up a
discreditable account such as could not be rivalled in the
whole history of Christian Civilisation : it tramples under
foot truth and right ; it steps over the lives, the happiness

446

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

and the freedom of men, and goes on its way, thus proving
itself to he one of the most dangerous enemies of mankind
in the realm of truth and justice and of civilisation.

The Jesuit Order is an international organisation
which most profoundly and skilfully, in hundreds of
disguises, excavates religion and State, knowledge and
civilisation, in order to fill the gap with its own spirit.
And this spirit is a spirit of lust and power, of lying and
deceit, of immoderate self-seeking, of greed for the posses-
sions of mankind, and even more for their freedom and
independence — the spirit of irreligion and anti- Christianity.

CHAPTER XXX

FROM THEN TILL NOW

My account of the past is ended. But a few lines must
still be given to the present and the road by which I
reached it.

If a tree uprooted by the storm could speak, it would
express what I felt after the breach with the Church and
the Order was accomplished. I had been torn away from
soil that had supplied the origin and sustenance of my
whole being, physical, moral and religious. In a sense
I was face to face w r ith nothingness, and my blood seemed
to be flowing from a thousand open wounds, just as the
tangled roots of the tree would also pour forth their sap.

What was to become of me ? I had formed no definite
plan when I left the old world behind. My step, so
weighty with consequences, had been a leap in the dark,
for I had burnt my ships behind me. Should I succeed
in reaching with new ships a better shore that I dreamed
of rather than saw, enveloped in mist and clouds ? Not
even these thoughts presented themselves to me at that
time clearly and distinctly. To escape from bondage,
from the yoke which threatened to suffocate my independ-
ence and my individuality, to be rid of fetters which
held my soul tightly compressed — this was all that I
then desired. All else was but one mighty question.

The separation from the Order could have been endured
with comparative ease. This wound, if wound indeed I
may call it, was soon closed, for, in spite of my fourteen

447

448

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

years of membership, I had never been a true Jesuit.
My mind never assimilated the Jesuit spirit.

But the separation from my religion ! It was flesh
and blood to me ; I was united to it by the bonds of
centuries ; every human possession that had hitherto
been mine was included in it — father, mother, brothers
and sisters. I could not even imagine them except in
and with my religion ; my thoughts and feelings had for
nearly forty years been permeated by Catholicism. And
now ! Such deeply rooted conceptions cannot be cast
aside like a coat. True, my outward connection with
the Catholic Church had been sundered by a single blow,
for I had recognised the erroneousness of some of the
fundamental dogmas of the Catholic faith. And I had
deliberately thrown aside the priestly cassock and the
Jesuit’s garb because I could no longer regard the priest-
hood and the Order as Christian and religious.

But these violent steps did not avail to set aside
and destroy the innumerable Catholic feelings, emotions,
sentiments and opinions which in a life of forty years had
grown along with the innermost parts of my being, with
my whole body and soul. True, I felt that they too
must go. But for the present they were still there,
torturing, troubling, frightening me. My whole being
was in a state of chaos. I no longer believed in the God
of ultramontane Catholic dogma. That Church in which I
had been born and educated, in which I had lived for more
than a generation, had fallen to ruins in my sight, and
I never even thought of any other Church. My soul
resembled a vessel without mast, sail or rudder, tossed
hither and thither by mountainous waves, and I, its pilot,
had no compass, saw no star shining overhead.

Nor could I tell what to do, or how to find occupation.
I have now been for several years occupied in a definite
and systematic fight against the most dangerous and

From Then Till Now

449

strongest of all powers — ultramontane Rome. To-day I
know what I want ; at that time I never thought of
taking up such a position, and knew neither what I wanted
nor what I ought to do, a state of torture which several
times suggested to me the thought of suicide.

Then a chance occurrence helped to disperse the clouds.
I had imagined that my secession from the Jesuit
Order, and my breach with the Church, had attracted no
attention ; for my part I did nothing to make them
known. And yet they were known. A hand was extended
to me from a side to which I am now almost as sharply
opposed as to Ultramontanism.

I received a letter from the Court Chaplain, Dr. Adolf
Stocker, inviting me to write something about — i.e.
against — the Jesuit Order for the Kreuzzeitung of his
friend, Baron von Hammerstein. I wrote a short feuilleton
article, but did not sign it, so little did I at that time
think of publicity and attack. The little article aroused
interest. The editor of the Preussische Jahrbiicher,
Professor Delbriick, placed his review at my disposal.
And so, in the spring of 1893, I wrote for the Preussische
Jahrbiicher my first series of long articles above my own
name. They bore the title “ Mein Austritt aus dem
J esuitenorden ,” and were afterwards reprinted as a
pamphlet.

Thus was the road opened to me which was to lead
me to my life’s work : the enlightening of men on the
ultramontane danger. My first steps along this road
were but timid, probably because I was not yet fully
conscious of that work. Anyone who should compare
that first pamphlet with this book would notice no incon-
siderable differences. In spite of the condemnation of
the Jesuit Order expressed in the pamphlet, I was com-
paratively mild in this first work of mine. There is some
uncertainty about it ; it utters no direct challenge. With

2 D

450

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

each fresh book this has gradually changed and improved,
because knowledge has arisen or been strengthened in
me, bringing about a clarity and certainty of will which
could only find expression in blows of the hammer.

In Heligoland I made the acquaintance of a member
of the Upper House, Count Karl von Finckenstein. I paid
frequent visits to his estate of Madlitz. The Master of
Madlitz was a thoroughly orthodox Protestant and Con-
servative. Through him I was brought into touch with his
religious and political circles, and this contact gradually
matured in me a distinct religious and political attitude,
though opposed to his.

My inborn inclination towards political liberalism and
religious free thought, which had been the point of depar-
ture for my liberation from ultramontane Catholic
servitude, revolted against the orthodox and conservative
routine mould. Truly I had not broken with Rome in
order to cast myself into the arms of the Chief Consistory
or the Kreuzzeitung. But here too, I had slowly and
gradually to feel my way towards my new point of view,
for it must be remembered that after fourteen years’
seclusion from the world I was an absolute stranger to
the religious and political currents of its life. I re-entered
them at the age of forty with almost child-like inex-
perience. How could I have come quickly and easily to
a decision ?

There was one person who helped my views to mature,
but who afterwards took little pleasure in the fruits.

Scarcely had I settled down in Berlin when Dr. Adolf
Stocker, who had suggested the writing of my first anti-
Jesuit article, tried to bring me over to his side. He
often visited me, and also invited me. Only on one
occasion did I accept his invitation, in order to avoid the
appearance of discourtesy ; and then I met, among a
fairly large party, his “ friend,” Baron Wilhelm von

From Then Till Now

45i

Hammerstein. At our very first meeting Stocker made
an unpleasant impression on me. He appeared to me
the type of the domineering and — with all his gifts —
narrow-minded parson. With and for him : never ! Of
that I was determined at the outset. There are “ Jesuits,”
too, among the “ orthodox ” Protestants, and Stocker was
their General. What I found particularly repugnant in
Stocker was his hatred of Catholicism (which was after-
wards modified through his greed for political power),
combined with a boundless ignorance of the subject. I
had left the Catholic religion, but I did not hate it then,
nor do I now. How, indeed, would it have been possible,
when throughout my life I had found in it so much that
was fair and good ? It was absolutely revolting to my
feelings to find such hatred, inflamed by ignorance, poured
forth by a weighty representative of Christianity.

Yet Stocker’s ignorance of Catholicism is a funda
mental fault of all Protestant circles, in particular of the
“ Orthodox ” section.

Once I was visiting one of our leading Protestant
dignitaries. The late Provost von der Goltz was also
present. The two men discussed their experiences at
Bonn, and the conversation turned on the Catholic Church.
Their statements could have been proved by any Catholic
schoolboy in the Second Class to be foolish distortion and
misunderstanding. At that time I was still very reserved
and shy, though happily I have since thrown off my
shyness, and therefore I did not undertake to play the
schoolboy’s part, but entered into an animated conver-
sation with the hostess, a charming lady, whom death
unfortunately claimed all too soon.

These people do not know how injurious are the effects
of ignorance, how greatly it widens the gulf between the
denominations. Things are beginning to improve in this
respect in Liberal Protestant circles. But even they are

452

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

still overshadowed by a dense cloud of ignorance. And
the worst of it is that both Orthodox Protestants and
Liberals are as convinced of their accurate knowledge of
Catholicism as the Pope of his infallibility. I have often
observed this with sorrow and dismay at the central
committee meetings of the “ Evangelischer Bund.” There
I saw leaders of the Liberal and Orthodox theology,
who thought themselves much better informed about
Catholicism than I, who had belonged to the Roman
Church for forty years. The ignorance of Protestantism
among Catholics is not nearly so great. The saying,
Catliolica non leguntur, is unfortunately often true ; while,
on the other side, Protestantica are very carefully studied.

In February, 1895, I joined the Protestant State
Church. Dr. Dryander, at that time pastor of the Holy
Trinity Church, admitted me to communion. I had also
attended his preparatory course, but found little satis-
faction in it. Dryander’s diplomatic theological manner,
which gives no decided answer to any question, neither
was nor is congenial to me.

What was it that induced me to join the Protestant
community ? Certainly not my love of the State Church.
After living for forty years in a Church community, I
was growing weary of my religious wanderings, which
had continued since the end of 1892, and as the delusion
that Church and religion were necessarily connected was
not yet extinguished in me, I was easily induced, by the
gentle pressure brought by various acquaintances, to
formal and outward adhesion. But I never left Dryander
in doubt as to my want of enthusiasm for the step.

At this day I should no longer take the step, but neither
do I retract it.

Church and religion — Church and Christianity— are
different, often antagonistic, ideas. This I have learnt
with certainty. All Churches are merely the work of man ;

From Then Till Now

453

in the fewest cases are they the outcome of religious needs ;
far oftener they spring from a greed for power. And
further, the Prussian State Church is a very imperfect
human institution which, both inwardly and outwardly,
has lost much of its religious Christian character, and
assumed instead that of bureaucratic formalism combined
with dependence on State and Court.

The “ religious ” Head of the State Church, its summits
episcopus, is the lord of the land, who at the same time
is Head of the Army and Navy, and commander of such
and such foreign regiments ; the dignitaries of the State
Church (the Head of the Consistory, the Consistories,
General Superintendents, Superintendents, Pastors), are
State officials in the pay of the State. A mere glance at
the Scriptures, and the position there occupied by the
Christian dignitaries, the “ episcopi ” and “ presbyters,”
must show that the Archbishop and the authorities of the
State Church have not the slightest connection with
Christianity. State and religion, State and Christianity,
are eccentric circles ; they can only be made concentric
through the sacrifice of religion and Christianity.

But its unnatural relation to the State is not the only
thing in the State Church which is unchristian and
unreligious. Their dependence on the Court is as much
to be condemned. The whole system of Court chaplains is
— to speak openly for once — a system of Court flunkeyism,
far removed from the point of view of the Christian religion.
Of course, I do not speak of the Court preachers in their
character as men. I refer to Court chaplains and Court
chaplaincies as conceptions and State institutions.

The Court chaplains are part of the staff age at Court cere-
monies ; they bear courtly titles such as Your Excellency ;
they have to preach at the time and place prescribed by
the wearer of the crown, and from texts chosen by him,
often at festivals, such as the Conferment of Orders, which

454

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

are absolutely opposed to the essence of Christianity — and,
indeed, of religion.* What room is there left for a trace
of religion and Christianity ?

State and Church, bureaucracy and formalism, have
almost completely estranged the State Church from the
people, and that is another of its fundamental abuses.
It is believed that by elaborate Church edifices “ the
religion of the people will be maintained,” that Christianity
can be supported and popularised by meaningless exter-
nalities (such as an elaborate consecration ceremony of
the Cathedral and a ceremonious expedition to Palestine),
but the recognition seems lacking that such things have
very little to do with popularising, and nothing at all
with Christianity and religion. In the midst of the
numerous unchristian externalities of the State Church,
God, religion and Christianity have become a mere cover
to hide a mass of vanity and self-glorification. And it
is a serious delusion to imagine that the “ people ” are
not aware of it.

The more , a Church is built up, both within and without,
on sincerity and simplicity, the closer it adheres to the
impressive simplicity of the model afforded by the com-
munity of Christ and the Apostles as depicted in the
Bible, the larger will be the circles of the masses it encom-
passes, the deeper its impression on humanity and its
power to ennoble and raise them.

In addition to all this, there is in the State Church an
unevangelical lack of freedom, which takes the form of
compulsory belief, trials for heresy, laws against heresy,
and all the other fine things which call themselves Christian,
and yet are so human that they must be included among
the darker aspects of human activity, those which owe

* The right text for a sermon on the occasion of conferring orders was once
suggested by the old Court Chaplain Biichsel with delightful outspokenness and
ironical reflection on himself : “ When they saw the star, they rejoiced with
exceeding great joy.”

From Then Till Now 455

their origin not to religion, but to a truly unreligious lust
for power and dominion.

Such a Church cannot inspire love, nor even much
respect. For the good it does in the social or educa-
tional domain, to balance its failure in the domain of
religion and Christianity, cannot be taken into account
when estimating its value as a Christian Church and
community. This is done much better by other non-
religious associations.

And yet, as I have said, I shall not retract the step I
took in February, 1895, for by leaving a Church we
forfeit the right to share in its deliberations and help in
the work of reform.

Again and again have I been asked, often in most
indiscreet fashion, “ What is your religious standpoint ? ”
The question is quite unjustifiable, for religion is an
absolutely private matter which concerns no one, least
of all the general public or the curious and sensation-
mongers. “ When thou prayest,” thus spoke the most
religious of all men, Jesus Christ, “ enter into thy closet,”
i.e. keep the public out. And in my view prayer is not
one of the main functions of religion, but the main
function.

The inquiry as to my religious attitude is, therefore,
unjustifiable; but still in this, the book of my life, I will
say a few words in answer.

The point at which I now stand has been reached by
a process of slow development, a road of curves and spirals.
The development is, strictly speaking, as old as my power
of thinking. Vague doubts dawned even in my childish
soul ; in later years they often became tormenting tempta-
tions, until at last Catholic faith and Catholic Christianity
collapsed within me. The result was my secession from
the Church and the Jesuit Order.

What new edifice did I erect on these gigantic ruins of

456

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

religion and Christianity ? A small one, for I have learnt
to be modest in my religious demands.

First of all, I do not include in religion such externals
as dogmas, sacraments, creeds, symbols, liturgies, cere-
monies. They may be of less or greater religious value
to individuals, but in themselves they are not part of
religion ; at most and at best they supply to many
thousands useful, perhaps even necessary, outward mani-
festations of their religious impulses and feelings. But
religion is the inward relation of the individual, based
on subjective and individual recognition and the personal
conscience, to God, that Being beyond this world, Whose
existence is demanded by reason as the origin and final
aim of the physical and spiritual world.*

Now, what is the character of this relation of man to
God ? This question is answered by Christ, Who thus
steps into the foreground as the founder, even creator,
of a religion.

It is He Who has set mankind in the filial relation to
God, Who gave him God as a Father. The age of religious
servitude which saw in God and gods only lords, kings
and tyrants, who worshipped God and gods in fear and
trembling, has gone by. From henceforth the wondrous
saying of Christ has become the basis of religion : “ Our
Father, which art in Heaven.”

The proclamation of the Fatherhood of God by Christ
is not without precedent in the history of religion. Buddha
had already set mankind on the road of heartfelt love and
communion with God, but never yet had the relation of
father and child, between God and man, been so clearly ex-
pressed and so comprehensively represented as by Christ.

This is the characteristic of the whole of Christianity ;

* The man whose reason does not demand the existence of such a supernatural
Being possesses no religion, but is not on that account bad, if his life is in harmony
with innate natural laws and the ethical principles universally recognised in
civilised countries ; and sooner or later he, too, will attain to God.

From Then Till Now

457

it comprises its whole contents as a religion. Everything
else which the Scriptures lay down as the teaching of
Christ is either a development of this fundamental idea
or an injunction for the conduct of men towards one
another. Dogmas and creeds (the divine humanity of
Christ, the Trinity, etc.) are the products of a subtilising
theology which has lost the immediate characteristic of
religious feeling — are systems more or less subtle which
satisfy the desire of men for abstract sophistry, for fashion-
ing according to types and by means of catalogues, but
which are entirely opposed to the notion of religion. It is
on the recognition of this fact that my Christianity is based,
and in this I find the satisfaction of my religious needs.

Not that there are not a number of world riddles and
obscure questions — as, for instance, What is the nature of
God ? (Even the fact of His existence cannot be mathe-
matically demonstrated.) What happens after death ?
and many other problems.

But such questions and riddles have nothing to do with
religion. Religion and its true meaning consist in the
saying : “I am God’s child and God is my Father.”
Those who cannot fashion their religion and their religious
attitude out of this thought will not be furthered in their
religion by creeds, symbols, dogmas, liturgies, and sermons.

In the thought of God’s Fatherhood lies also the impulse
to that religious activity which I regard as the main sinew
of religion, without which all religious apparatus lacks
religion, and with which everything is religion, even
without any apparatus — I mean, our intercourse with
God the Father in prayer.

The idea of God’s Fatherhood is an endless source of
immeasurable confidence. The Being Whom I call God,
the final Aim and End of the world and its happenings,
must be endlessly wise, good, powerful, just. And this
unending Being is my Father. There is neither weakness

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

458

nor sin nor error which does not vanish into nothingness
in the face of such unending nature. God my Father is
the Author of my being ; He has placed me in the world,
unasked, therefore He must also, some time — when, where
and how I know not — become the Perfecter of my happiness.
The saying, often frivolously applied, Tout comprendre,
c'est tout pardonner, has the deepest religious and genuine
God-like meaning.

This religious meaning has been revealed to me by
Christ, and, therefore, it is the foundation and corner-
stone of my religion. Therefore I am a Christian.

Would this recognition have been impossible without
Christ ? Certainly not. Therefore Christ is, to speak
theoretically, not the indispensable founder of religion.
But because He actually drew forth this recognition from
the existing religious confusion, and placed it before our
eyes in its grand simplicity, therefore, in the light of history,
He is the greatest religious founder.

Thus Christianity is also the world-religion, for thus
it comprises all religions, and leads them, as long as they
are not opposed to natural laws, upwards into a higher
unity. Divine Manhood, and the doctrine of the Two
Natures, transform Christ into an unnatural hybrid, and
plunge Him so deeply into the heathen mythology of demi-
gods and the offspring of gods as to remove Him entirely
from healthy human comprehension, which must be at
the basis of every religious sentiment.

And thus Christ, Who on the cross became a martyr
to His religious ideas, has arisen from the grave, not in
the body, but in the Spirit ; He lives, not in flesh and blood,
but in Spirit and in Truth, in Power, and in the effects of
His teachings and works.

The small and limited literary activity described
above by no means satisfied my desire for work. In

From Then Till Now

459

particular, I missed a regular fixed occupation, which
was the natural result of the training I had had ever since
my childhood. I hoped to find it in the Government
service. Before I entered the Jesuit Order I had been
a Royal Prussian Rejerendar, and, as an irreproachable
citizen, I thought that I had the right to re-appointment.
How greatly was I to be undeceived !

What I am about to write here is not stated from any
sensational motives. I register facts which constitute a
piece of not uninteresting contemporary history, and which,
under the stage direction of the Centre Party, were enacted
behind the scenes.

Count Finckenstein-Madlitz, whom I have already
mentioned, had been kind enough, in the summer of 1894,
to go to the Imperial Chancellor, Count Caprivi, and ask
him to re-appoint me to the Prussian State service.
Caprivi, with a movement of distinct alarm, gave the
remarkable answer : “ What would the Holy Father in
Rome and the Centre Party say, if we were to employ
Count Hoensbroech in the State service ? ” That settled
the request of a German and Prussian citizen for a State
appointment, as far as the German Imperial Chancellor
and Prussian Minister-President was concerned. But
there was a sequel to that story.

In February, 1895, I suddenly, without any action on
my part, received “ by Imperial command ” an invitation
to a small Court ball. The Kaiser desired to make my
acquaintance. For more than half an hour on the evening
of February 13th, 1895, William II. conversed with me
in the White Hall of the Berlin Castle, to the great annoy-
ance of the Centre leader, Lieber, who was also present
and, because the Kaiser was so long conversing with me,
missed the opportunity of being presented. To the
Kaiser’s question as to what I intended to do, I replied
that it was my wish to re-enter the State service, but

460

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

there were great difficulties in the way of its fulfilment.
And I informed him about the utterance of Caprivi. The
Kaiser took a step back, put his hand on his sword, and said
excitedly : “ What ! Did Caprivi say that to you ? ”
“ Yes, your Majesty.” “ Well, my dear Count, then I
assure you that from this time forward I shall take your
affairs into my own hands.”

I asked him for a private audience, to enable me to
give him further information, for the long conversation
with the Kaiser was causing universal sensation — Miquel
was circling fox-like round the Kaiser and me — and therefore
it appeared to me undiplomatic. The Kaiser graciously
consented, with the remark that I was to inform Lukanus,
saying : “ There he stands.” Then he dismissed me with
a friendly and hearty handshake. I immediately informed
Lukanus of the granting of the private audience, and asked
him to assign a time for it. Lukanus received my com-
munication with an expression of ill-concealed annoyance,
but in face of the wish of his master he could not avoid
assuring me that he would “ in due time ” inform me of
the day and hour of the audience.

For the next few days the leading organs of the Centre
Party ( Germania and Kolnische Volkszeitung) contained
violent articles inspired by the Centre leader, Lieber,
about the “ extraordinary circumstance ” of the Kaiser’s
invitation to me, and the distinction he conferred on me
by our long interview.

The whole attitude of the Kaiser had convinced me
that the promised audience would soon be granted. Weeks
and months went by, but I saw and heard nothing. Several
questions addressed in letters to Lukanus were answered
evasively. As the Kaiser had promised me a post as
Head of a District ( Landrat ), and only a province with a
preponderance of Protestants could be under consideration,
the then Minister of the Interior, von Roller, had advised

From Then Till Now

461

me to take up my residence in Kiel, in order to become
acquainted with the conditions there. Therefore, in
October, 1895, I migrated to Kiel with my wife, for I had
married in August of that year. But her severe illness,
which necessitated an operation, forced me to return to
Berlin in December.

During my residence in Kiel, I several times visited
the General Field-Marshal, Count Waldersee, with whom
I was acquainted, who at that time was General in com-
mand of the 9th Army Corps at Altona. On one of these
occasions I informed Waldersee of my still unsatisfied
claim for an audience. I had long ago given up all hope
of it, on account of the information I had in the meantime
received about the influence of the Centre Party on the
Kaiser ; but I did not want to be so curtly set aside. I
desired that my right to an audience, founded on the
Imperial promise, should be recognised.

Waldersee said, with a peculiar expression on his face,
“ Yes, yes ; that fox Lukanus,” and proposed that I
should give him a memorial to the Kaiser, who was expected
at Altona in the next few days for an inspection and
would be lunching with him. He would choose a favourable
moment for presenting my memorial to the Kaiser and
enforcing its claim. “ Then we shall have disposed of
Lukanus.” I sat down at Waldersee’s writing-table, and
wrote the petition, and after a little while I was informed
by Waldersee : “ Everything has gone off satisfactorily ;

I hope you will soon get your audience.” Again weeks
went by ; then, at the end of January, 1896, when I lay
ill in bed with influenza, I received a telegram, signed
by the Chief Court-Marshal Eulenberg, from the New
Palace, which invited me to an audience, “ to-morrow at

II o’clock.” One of the Imperial carriages would fetch
me from Wildpark.

My first impulse was to telegraph a refusal on account

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

462

of my illness, but then I thought, “ The opportunity may
never recur ” ; and so I put in an appearance punctually
at the New Palace, in a high state of fever, without even
considering that I was exposing the Kaiser to the risk of
infection. Lukanus conducted me to the Kaiser, and
remained present during the audience, which lasted for
more than an hour. The Kaiser received me very
graciously. After a sympathetic inquiry about the health
of my wife, who was ill in a nursing-home, he opened the
conversation with the words : “I have asked you here
to learn your opinion about the attitude of my Govern-
ment to the Centre Party.” Of course, I cannot repeat
the contents of our interview ; it gave me the opportunity
for an interesting insight into the Kaiser’s psychology
and into public affairs. But there was not a word about
personal matters, of a State appointment, nor of his promise
to take my affairs into his own hands. Only, quite at the
end, when he dismissed me in a friendly manner, the
Emperor said : “ Everything else Lukanus will tell you ” ;
but after the audience I informed Lukanus that I set
little value on “ everything else ” which he would have
to tell me ; that I should only come to him in order to
carry out the wish of the Kaiser. In the interview which
then took place with Lukanus I curtly rejected his pro-
posals, which contained next to nothing tangible : a
position as Landrat or anything else of the kind had
become “ impossible,” but there was nothing to prevent
my returning to the State service as Referendar at Frank-
fort-on-the-Oder !

Soon afterwards I was told by a well-informed authority
that the Centre had told the Minister of War that if I
received a State appointment, the Party would close its
ranks, and vote against the next naval estimates. And
when the Minister reported this to the Kaiser, he let
fall the remark : “ If matters stand thus, I shall let the

From Then Till Now

463

man drop.” In this way I and my affairs slipped through
the fingers of his Majesty which, according to his Imperial
promise, were to hold and lead me on. The pressure from
the Centre Party had compelled the Imperial hand to let
me go.

Of course it was not the matter of my own personality
which induced the Centre Party to take up this attitude.
It was a fundamental principle for which it was fighting :
the rebel against the Roman Church must not make his
way in Prussia. And yet the Centre emphatically advo-
cates “ civic toleration ” and “ religious equality.”

A good friend of mine in the Ministry of Public Instruc-
tion, the late Count Andreas Bernsdorff, had suggested to
me the idea of taking up an academic career, and settling
down at the University of Berlin, or some other Prussian
University, as a lecturer ( Privatdozent ) on Church history.
He procured me an interview with the Minister of Public
Instruction, Dr. Bosse.

Bosse received me with overwhelming amiability : that
was an excellent idea, and quite in accordance with his
own wishes, etc., etc., but the consideration which he was
obliged to take for the powerful Centre Party unfortunately
rendered the execution of this excellent plan impossible.
“ What a storm the Centre would raise in Parliament
were I to consent to your appointment as lecturer, or
even advocate it ! ” This panic-mongering caused my
gall to overflow ; I rose and took my leave with the
words : “ Your Excellency, until to-day I should not have
thought that a Minister in a land of religious equality like
Prussia, would thus give way before the troops of Rome.”*

In Prussia accordingly the doors of all appointments
were closed to me. Would they stand open in the Empire ?

* Bosse was speechless at the time j it was not till years later that he recovered
his voice, when he happened once to sit next me at dinner after his resignation.
Then he said to me : “ At that time you treated me very badly ” ; to which I
replied : “ And you treated me and yourself even worse.”

464 Fourteen Years a Jesuit

A request to the Imperial Chancellor, Prince Hohenlohe,
for admission to the diplomatic service met with a polite
refusal.

These are some reminiscences from the dark days of
my rebellion against the Church, whose arm is long.
They belong to the same time when I was warned by
the Foreign Office only to go there after dark, and with
great precautions (I used often to go there to visit one of
the ^Reporting Councillors), for the Centre Party had set
detectives to watch my goings to and fro.*

Still, I regard it as providential that everything turned
out thus. How could I, as a State official or a diplomat,
have carried on my life’s task : to spread enlightenment
about Ultramontanism, and stir up a conflict against it ?

In the fulfilment of this difficult task I have found con-
tentment and success, but also many a disappointment.

It is impossible in this place to develop my ultra-
montane programme. For this I refer to my writings :
Ultramontanism : its Nature and how to Attack It ; f The
Modern State and the Romish Church ; Rome and the Centre .J
I will say only a few words about my disappointments,
because they are characteristic of our internal politics.

The wrongly conducted Kulturkampf of the ’seventies,
with its unfortunate issue, had greatly damped the desire
to attack Ultramontanism, and also increased immeasur-
ably the political force which Ultramontanism possesses
in the Centre. The Government parties and the Press,

* I do not propose to enter into the violent personal attacks to which I and
my family were exposed. My book, In eigener Sache und Anderes , gives information
on the subject.

f It afforded me great satisfaction that Bismarck had read this book with
considerable interest. It stood among other much -used books in his reference
library. There I saw it, full of book-markers, when I visited Friedrichsruhe soon
after the death of the great man.

J Der Ultramontanismus, sein Wesenund seine Bekampjung (Leipzig, Breitkopf
und Hartel), Moderner Stoat und Bomische Kirche (Berlin, E. N. Schwetschke
und Sohn)» Bom und das Zentrum (Leipzig, Breitkopf und Hartel).

From Then Till Now

465

unable to distinguish the wrongful methods of the old
struggle from its rightful aims, were powerless in face
of their great antagonist. On the other hand, the
Centre had offered its Parliamentary collaboration. The
Government parties and the Press were overcome by the
desire for compromise ; they forgot that in the Centre is
embodied the ultramontane view of life, that it is the deadly
enemy of the modern State and the development of its
civilisation, and saw in it only the party whose numerous
members could give decisive votes for their legislation.
Added to this was their fear of social democracy. “ Better
black than red,” they used to say at that time !

Each year the Centre became a more convenient ally.
Shallow opportunism and Miquel’s “ collective policy ”
did their part. No one would hear of a new and better
conducted Kulturhampj. The circles that set the tone
regarded a Kulturhampj as a struggle between denomina-
tional passions. The recognition that Ultramontanism is
historically and actually separable from the Catholic
religion, that therefore the struggle against it must be,
not a denominational but a political struggle on behalf
of civilisation — this recognition, which is the alpha and
omega of a Kulturhampj with any prospect of success,
had not yet dawned upon them. Therefore my rallying
cry against Ultramontanism fell on deaf ears. I was
included among the stirrers up of denominational strife.*

* Every association with a distinctly denominational tendency (such as the
" Evangelischer Bund,” the “ Gustav Adolf Verein,” etc.) is, as far as its tendency
is anti-ultramontane, harmful, for it arouses denominational counter-passions,
and thus supplies Ultramontanism with a weapon which makes it invincible,
the calling of religion into the field for its own purposes. The only right method
in combating Ultramontanism is pursued by the “ Anti-ultramontaner Beichs-
verband ” (President, Admiral von Knorr ; Office, Berlin, S.W., Wilhelmstrasse
122a). Here denominationalism and religion are excluded by the constitutions.
It attacks its opponents on those domains where alone it is open to attack and
capable of defeat — that is, politics and education. All who recognise the threatening
danger of ultramontane Jesuitism should join this Association.

466

Fourteen Years a Jesuit

In spite of the greatest hindrances, and often of the
severest disappointments, increased by ultramontane at-
tacks and accusations, I held out, in the consciousness
that I was on the right road. And my work of enlighten-
ment, in spoken words and in writings, has not been in
vain. Slowly the wheel began to swing round, and a
characteristic proof of this is that, in great part through
my labours on behalf of enlightenment, the saying,
“ Rather black than red ” has been changed for the
opposite, “ Rather red than black.” Still there is an
immense deal yet to be done. Above all, the highest
standpoint is still lacking : the consciousness that the
struggle with Ultramontanism has a background and a
significance in universal history ; that in reality the
existence or non-existence of a modern state of civilisation
depends on the result of this struggle. And only this
recognition can produce the joy and determination for
combat which are guarantees of victory.

This book proves beyond refutation that at the present
moment the driving force of Ultramontanism is Jesuitism.
In Jesuitism are concentrated ail the intolerance, reaction,
fanaticism, irreligion, and hostility to progress which in
the course of centuries have sprung from ultramontane
soil. And these forces, with their hostility to human nature,
have been set in motion by Jesuitism with a cunning and
unscrupulous daring unexampled in the history of the
Christian era. Thus the sum total of my book may be
compressed into the saying of the great French statesman
and patriot, Gambetta, with an addition, u Le Clericalisme ”
— Clericalism is Ultramontanism — “ et le Jesuitisme, voila
Pennemi ! ”

Yet my book shall close with a more peaceful note
and a happier outlook.

Those who fight against Jesuitism and Ultramontanism
fight for the religious liberation of many, many millions

From Then Till Now 467

of Catholics. But the Catholic religion conceals, in spite
of terrible human weaknesses — and in what creed are these
lacking ? — forcible and profound elements of edification
and civilisation. They are held down and misused by the
violation of their true nature through ultramontane Jesuit
tyranny. What a task for a liberator, after subduing
Ultramontanism and Jesuitism, to allow these seeds to
germinate !

Wide horizons and possibilities of religious and educa-
tional development open up before us. We seem to hear
the bells ringing for peace, and their sound proclaims the
coming of a better day.

For humanity needs religion, and will always need it.
But men must refrain from religious strife and denomina-
tional bitterness.

Let us allow religions to develop themselves, only let
us root out ignorance from them, and destroy it !

Concord — and unity too — comprehension and tolera-
tion will result and bring blessing.

THROUGH CONFLICT TO PEACE.

INDEX

Aachen, relics at the Cathedral of, i.

324-5; author’s pilgrimage to, ii. 212
Aalheck, Jesuit villa at, ii. 77
Abiturienten at Berlin University, ii.
403 (note)

Absolution, question of, in reserved
cases, i. 363

Academy, purpose of the Jesuit, i, 125;
exclusion from, as a means of pres-
sure, 177

Acolyte, misuse of the post of, in Jesuit
schools, i. 161

Acquaviva, Claudius, drafts the Ratio
Studiorum, i. 63; condemns Jesuit
neglect of Latin, 101-2; approves
Marian Congregations, 176; Commis-
sion of Studies in Germany insti-
tuted by, 190; on the unchastity of
the Order, 204, ii. 71, 107 (note);
enjoins the reading of Loyola’s letter
on obedience, i. 337; deprecates the
reluctance to make a “ statement ”
of conscience, 347; advises the omis-
sion of references to confession from
annual reports, 366; concerning
women and the Exercises, 383-4;
completes the organisation of the
Society of Jesus, 407; advises reserve
in political matters, ii. 10; his in-
structions as to the confessing of
women, 124, 125, 126; enjoins sur-
veillance of priests and the size of
confessionals, 127-8; his crafty hint
to confessors of princes, 137; his
Ordinance on the confessing of
sovereigns, 169-70; his secret In-
structions touching the confessing
of sovereigns, 172-3, 429; sanctions
the publication of Mariana's book
approving tyrannicide, 328; obliged
to condemn this doctrine, 333-4
Admonitor, duties of, i. 352, 420, 422,
424

Adultery, Jesuit condonation of, ii. 305,
309: on sinning to avoid, 323-5
Advocatus Diaboli, duties of, ii. 86 (note)
Aehrenthal, Baron Luis von, i. 244
^Esthetics, Jesuit conception of, i. 124
Affiliates of the Society of Jesus, ii. 13-
21; Loyola’s recognition of, 16-17
A onus Dei, as used by Jesuit students,
i. 182; in Bavaria, 319
Agricola, Father, records the existence
of some curious relics, i. 313; gives
an instance of demoniac possession,
322

Aguirre. Cardinal, on Jesuit morals, ii.
291-2

Aix-la-Chapelle. great relics at. i. 324-5;

author’s pilgrimage to, ii. 212
Alexander III., Tsar, ii. 167
Alexander VII., Pope, the Exercitium
spirituale of, used at Jesuit schools,
i, 181; supports the designs of the

Jesuits in Hungary, ii. 145; con-
demns Jesuit teaching on morals,
292

Alexander VIII., Pope, condemns Jesuit
teaching on morals, ii. 292
Algiers, author visits, i. 261-2
Allen, Cardinal, ii. 151
Aloysius of Gonzaga, an objectionably
“angelic” boy, i. 208, 386, 400; an
example to the young, ii. Ill; sup-
ports the Virgin in a vision of her
Descent, 112

Aloysius, St., Congregations of, i. 164
Altona, Count Waldersee at, ii. 461
Alvarez, Father Balthasar, i. 370
Alvarez, Emanuel, “ Latin Grammar ”
of, i. 70-2

Ambiguity. Jesuit doctrine of, ii. 304-7
America, Province of. Bishop Palafox’s
report of Jesuit wealth in, ii. 87-8
Anatomia anatomiae Societatis Jesu,
ii. 9

Anderledy, General of the Jesuit Order,
.influence of, over the Marchioness
of Hoensbroech, i. 33; admits the
Jesuit control of the Marian Con-
gregations, 171; examples of his
mental dexterity, 174; approves of
the author’s conduct during novi-
tiate, 403; declines to stop the
ostracism of Leo XIII., ii. 67; his
diploma to the Marchioness of Hoens-
broech, 129; attitude of, towards
General Boulanger, 165; unpopu-
larity of, among Jesuits, 414
Andre on Jesuit morality, ii. 299
Angelic Doctor (Aquinas), ii. 253
Angelita, Canon John Marcell, on the
death of Cardinal Tournon, ii. 54
Angelus Bell, Jesuit students and, i.
121

Angelus Custos, the duties of, i. 271,
355

Anti-ultramontaner Reichsverbaud, ii.
465 (note)

Antonio, Father Francisco, on the post
of princes’ confessor, ii. 195.
Apparitions, Catholic belief in, en-
couraged, i. 26 et seqq.; instances of
pseudo-mystical, 299 et seqq.
Appiani, Antonio, alleges that Cardinal
Tournon was poisoned, ii. 54-5; per-
secuted by the Jesuits, 61, 63
Aquinas. Thomas, authority of, in theo-
logy, ii. 253-6

Arcana Societatis Jesu, ii. 10
Aristocracy, Jesuit subservience to, i.
145-6, ii. 372

Aristotle, supremacy of. in the Jesuit
philosophy schools, ii. 250-3
Arminia, the Catholic Students’ Union
at Bonn, i. 245

Arnauld, Antoine. Jesuit forgeries in
the name of, ii. 315-7

47 °

Index

Arn xni ssa

Arrogance of the Society of Jesus, u.

irt 10 ?loctrine of the Catholic Church

AFt concerning, i. 46-7; Jesuit teaching
about, 124-5 ..

AsceUcism^orthe Jesuit Order, i. 8*6

Asceticism . ^ ^ distinc t from piety, 295;

Jesuit ascetic discipline coa ^ < L < l r i4i
326-90; Jesuit asceticism compared
with Christian, 326; its end and the
means to it, io.; maintained by
blind obedience, 326-40; how it com-
nels to sin, 335-6; dependence on
the Superior the rule of practice
of 341; the Statement of Conscience
as’ a mainstay of, 342-8;
denunciation, espionage and um
formUy, 348-61; greatly supported
by confession, 361-9; observances of
the Exercises complete the discipline
of ? 36*84? fruits of, 384-90; instances
of what has been done as a result

Assistances 0 of the J e3U , it nt °rSf Society
Assistants to the General of the bociety

of Jesus, i. 422 Trin •zoi 9

Attrition, doctrine of. li. 300, 381-2

A ^ES d fi5 tie’E?i a o P ra d do^of ‘the

wealth of the Jesuits in, at the date
of the suppression of the Order. 85
Avanx, Claude ifeames. Count d , n.

•< ATe,° Maria,” Latin and German texts,
i. 5 . ..

Aveiro, Duke of, n- 336

Bachem, A., on the Marian Oongrega-

Bachem 8 ' Karl,° on the German Centre
Party's indebtedness to Jesuit guid-
ance, ii. 344 (note)

Raexem Suicide s grave at. 11 . 398
Bagshawe. Christopher, on Jesuits of
Elizabeth's reign 11 . 46
Balde, Jacob, Jesuit poet, n. 160, held
ud to admiration, 229 .

Ballerini on the use of equivocations,

Bamberg! the Jesuit gymnasium in, in
1742, i. 114

BaritVadeleine, Mother foundress of

the female Congregation of the
Sacred Heart, i. 307 f

Bartoli, Father, on the necessity of
blind obedience, i 339 „ ,

Baumgartner, his criticism ot Scniller,
ii. 234-6; his tirade on Goethe, 236-45
his real literary convictions, 244;
required to alter his monograph on
Goethe, 244-5; his character trans-
formed, 245 (note), 372
Baumstark. Reinhold, on Jesuit mor-
alitv ii. 294; on Jesuit influence
through confession, 387 > A _}? is , co f I V*
demnation of the Order, 430 ; death
of 430 (note) . _ ,

Bavaria, Jesuit schools in co i}£®°l n ;if
by Government, 1 . 193 * 4 ^

Jesuit piety in, 319; wealth of the
Jesuit Order in, ii. 83-4

Beauty!’ pervert!: d Catholic ideas of. i.

of a lesser sin to avoid a & reatei,

Beck^Chief District Judge, and the
Jesuit designs against the Hohen-
zollerns ii : 384-5

Beck, Theodench, 1 . 207 , 11 . 71 .

Peter. General of the Jesuit
Order, maintains the reactionary
system of education in Austria, 1 .

71- the author visits, at Rome, too
(!: 964; approves of . the

author’s conduct during novitiate,

403; provides for the supremacy of
the General C 9 ngregation 423 a
pnnfessor of princes, 11 . 135 (note).
d leased° with the author’s, “ progress
Fn vTrtue," 209; on ^ra philo-
soDhv 251-2; instruction Ox, es-
tablishing literary censorship.

Bedbiirg, the Catholic aristocratic aca-

Behrens! provincial Superior ^f tbe
German Jesuit province, character
nf i 33* his influence over the
author’s * sister Antonia 211 ; mis-
reDresents the facts of the I ranco
German war, 233; his power para-

srsA^uSKKk sa

men axis Marxa-Laach, 3hd , »

B pilar min. Cardinal, saves Loyola a
letter * from condemnation by the
Inquisition, i. 336; a famous Jesuit
theologian, ii. Ill ; < >n A th | 3 o Up ^ c he3
of Church over State, 338 , teacnes
the “ indirect ” power of the Pope,

Benedict,.. St , the founder of monach-
Benedic^XIII., Pope,

publishing Innocent XI. a decree
the Marian

&t eS rfghT 9 to ’controlPhem? 170 ;

Benn\|sen,°Udolf and'the suspension

of the German laws against the
Berge-Borbeck, railway accident at, 1 .

fffiftS! S&jjg

& .^thPr'anendr^iversity at',
resul? of the author’s studies

Index

in, 407; author makes his residence
in, 422

Berling, Jesuits convert the wealthy
widow of, ii. 166-7
Berlingske Tidende , ii. 167
Bermudez, Father, character of, ii. 188
Bernard, St., his coutempt of the human
body, i. 391-2

Bernsdorff, Count Andreas, ii. 463
lierruyer. Father Joseph, the Pope con-
demns the book by, ii. 52
Berti, Giovanni, on Jesuit versatility,
ii. 291

Bethmann-Hollweg, Yon, German Chan-
cellor, ii. 85 (note)

Beyschlag, Professor, ridiculed by the
Jesuit Pesch, ii. 361; his private life
to be investigated, 375
Bible, Catholic neglect of the, i. 14;
disregarded in Jesuit education, 318 ;
neglect of, in the Exercises, 382
Bieczynski, Father Stanislaus, i. 140-1
Biedermann, influence of, on the author,
ii. 406

Biedermann, Father Jacob, celebrates
the pity and love of Father Rem,
i. 311

Bien Public, Le, i. 6; supports Papal
infallibility. 222

Billet, Father Karl, tries to induce the
author to enter the Jesuit Order,

i. 217

Bishops, Catholic, status of, i. 272
Bismarck, Prince, as a sort of Diocle-
tian, i. 16; antagonism of the
author's parents to. 16-7; Cohen-
Blind’s and Kullmann’s attempts on
the life of, 212; “not wanted even
by the devil,” ib.; his blunder over
the Kulturkampf, 255-6; forged docu-
ments to be used against, ii. 167;
a student of the author's book on
Ultramontanism, 464 (note)

Bissel. Father, ii. 160-1
Blasius, St., feast of, at Kevelaer, i. 32
Blessed ( Beatus ), a title preliminary to
Saint ( Sanctus ), i. 310 (note)
Blyenbeck Castle, offered to exiled Ger-
man Jesuits, i. 248; ceremonial
reception of exiles at, 249; set aside
for the students in philosophy, 287;
a “ magister ” meal at, ii. 76; the
author’s residence at, 214-6; the
author reads his first Mass at, 222;
becomes the seat of the novitiate,
369

Blyssem, Father, on Jesuit political
activity at Graz. ii. 140; equivoca-
tion of his report to General Ac-
quaviva, 141-2; his use of pseudo-
nyms, 142

Boarding-house system advocated by the
Jesuits, i. 130; lack of supervision
in, 185

Bobadilla, ii. 383

Bodler. John, on Jesuit wirepulling in
Poland, ii. 146-8

Boeselager, Baron Karl von, urges the
author to join the Jesuits, i. 243
Boger, Dr., pronounces the author con-
sumptive, i. 254

Bohemia, Jesuits support the war
against, ii. 159-60

BollandistB. the compilers of the Acta
Sanctorum, i. 300 (note): library of,

ii. 390; a literary republic, 390 (note)
Bollandus, John, ii. 114

47i

Bombay, German Jesuit mission at, i.
85

Bone, Heinrich, anthologies compiled
by, favoured of the Jesuits, i. 108;
Director of the Mayence Gymna-
sium, 220; teacher at the Catholic
Academy at Bedburg, 229
Bongart, Baron von dem, gives the
Jesuits the use of his estate of
Wynandsrade, i. 287
Boniface VIII., Pope, on the relation
between Church and State, ii. 339,
340

Bonn University, the author attends, i.
122, 243; the Arminia at, 245; the
Union boycotted by German high-
class students, 246

Bonucci on the persecution of Gonzalez,
ii. 295 (note)

Borgia, Francis, i- 400; canonised, ii.
16. Ill

Bosse, Dr., surrenders to Rome, ii. 463
and note

Bossuet attacked by Father La Chaise,
ii. 185

Boulanger, General, supported by the
Jesuits, ii. 164-5

Bourdaloue, Father, duplicity of, ii. 185,
186 (note)

Bracamnte y Guzman, Gaspar de.
Count of Penaranda, Catholic am-
bassador at Munster, ii. 160
Brazil, German Jesuit mission at, i. 85;
Father Fah transferred to, ii. 411
(note); the author collects money
for, 419

Breituug, work of. on the Deluge con-
demned, ii. 268; is rusticated to
Ordrupshoj, ib.

Breisgau, in the Austrian Borderlands,
ii. 40

Brentano, as a German classic, i. 103
Bresciani, Antonio, novels of, approved
by Jesuit teachers, i. 153-4
Brischar, Father, Professor of History
at Wynandsrade, i. 121
Britto, Father, ii. 64-5
Briihl, Pastor of Guelders, i. 43
Brussels, the De Buck lawsuit at. it.

99-100; the author’s studies in, 390-1
Buchberger, Professor, i. 311
Btichsel, Court Chaplain, ii. 454 (note)
Buchum, General Assembly of Catholics
at, ii. 393

Buck, De, lawsuit at Brussels, i. 99-
100

Buddha and his teaching, ii. 456
Buffalo, German Jesuit mission at, i.
85

Bulls; Omnipotentis Dei, i. 165; Regi-
mini militantis ecclesiae, 407, 413;
Exposcit debitum, 413: Ascendente
Domino, 417; of Urban VIII., canon-
ising Ignatius Loyola, ii. 21-2; of
Clement XI., excommunicating the
Bishop of Macao, 59; unigenitus,
189; Unam sanctam, 312, 340
Buonvisi, Francisco. Cardinal, on Jesuit
morality, ii. 291
Busch. Father, i. 121
Busenbaum, a leading Jesuit casuist,
ii. 287; on calumniation, 308

Cabarassi, Sebastian, i. 164
Cabrallius, Jesuit ambassador of Portu-
gal to the Pope, ii. 144
Caduff, Procurator, the author’s lie to.

472

Index

ii. 419; the author restores the
money to, 420

Calumniation from the Jesuit stand-
point, ii. 308

Camargo on Jesuit morality, ii. 298-9
Campian, Father Edmund, the English
Jesuit preacher, ii. Ill; and the
excommunication of Queen Eliza-
beth, 312

Campmuller, Father, violates the con-
fession of Maria Theresa, ii. 175-6
Canada, lay members of the Society of
Jesus in, ii. 19

Canaye, French Ambassador at Venice,
on Jesuits and confession, i. 367
Candlemas Day, why so named, i. 402
{note)

Canisius, Peter, the “ Hammer of
Heretics,” ii. Ill

Canossa, the Kulturkampf sends Ger-
many to, i. 256
Canrobert, Marshal, i. 232
Canterbury, Boulangist activity in the
Jesuit College at, ii. 164-5
Caprivi, Count, ii. 459
Capuchins, Jesuit opposition to, at
Colmar, ii. 97

Caraffa, Vincent, enjoins teaching on all
Jesuit students, i. 87-8; intervenes
on behalf of the other Orders at
Vienna University, ii. 45; his crafty
device of the “ Conscience ” formula,
170-1

Cardenas on justifiable equivocation, ii.
304-5

Carissimus, the use of this title in a
Jesuit society, i. 271
Casaubon, Isaac, on the Mayence re-
print of Mariaua's book, ii. 332-3
Castropalao on the justifiable conniv-
ance at sin, ii. 322-6
Casuists, the chief, among the Jesuits,
ii. 288

Catalogues, the two Jesuit, i. 354; char-
acter of the second, 354-5
Catherine of Alexandria, St., ii. 397
Catholic League and the German Jesuits,
ii. 161

Catholic Students’ Unions boycotted by
Catholics of “ blood,” i. 246
Catholicism, force of tradition in, i. 4-6;
grandeur of and superstition in,
12-13; neglect of the Bible by, 14;
character of the German Catholic
priests, 23; teaches faith in guardian
angels, ghosts and devils, 26-7; re-
quires early confession, and why,
34 et seqq. ; “morality” of, 39, 40;
the three fundamental practices of
piety compulsory, 159; erroneously
alleged to have been beaten at
Koniggratz and Sedan, 233; affected
by the force of Christian idealism,
277 et seqq.; morality of, dominated
hy Jesuitism, 286-8; dogma of,
dominated by Ultramontanism, 287-
8; C9ndemned by its toleration of
Jesuitism, 423; the only hope for,
467

Cathrein reflects on Leo XIII., ii. 67;
his appearance of scholarship, 277;
juggles with the Jesuit approval of
Mariana’s book on tyrannicide, 328
(note), 331 (note); his view of reli-
gious toleration, 353-4; his hostility
to State schools, 439
Caussin, Nicholas, on Jesuit influence in

politics, ii. 170; protests against
violation of confession of sovereigns,
174

Celibacy, the question of. i. 275
Censorship, Jesuit, ii. 264-9
Centre Party in German politics, a
strong ultramontane force, i. 246;
created by the Kulturkampf, 256;
Jesuit leaders of, ii. 165-6; under
Jesuit guidance. 344 and note ; in-
volved in the Jesuit settlement in
Berlin, 401, 402; power of, in Parlia-
ment, 459; hostility of , to the author,
460, 464; influence of, with the
Kaiser, 461-3; the predominant force
in German politics of the day,
463-4; “better black than red,” 46s ;
“ rather red than black,” 466
Chanones, Loyola’s confessor at Mont-
serrat, i. 371

Charity, commercial aspect of, ii. 413
Chastity, the vow of, i. 273; the counsel
of chastity examined, 275; violation
of, by the Jesuits, ii. 67-71; Jesuit
boastfulness of their, 109
Chatel, John, attempts to murder Henry
IV. of France, ii. 335
Cheminet, Father, discreditable conduct
of, ii. 190

China, wealth of the Jesuits in, ii. 88-9
Chinese rites and missions, the struggle
between Rome and the Jesuits about,
ii. 53-66

” Chocolate ” for the General of the
Society of Jesus, ii. 104
Christ, the work He accomplished for
humanity, ii. 456-8

“ Christ, or Anti-Christ,” the author’s
pamphlet, ii. 394

Christianity, the real nature of, ii. 406;

the root idea of, 456-8
Christians, classification of, by the
Ultramontane Catholic Church, i.
272

Christmas creche before the High Altar,
i. 160-1; midnight Mass on Christmas
Eve at Feldkirch, 201-2
Church and State considered, ii. 452-5;
a National Church a branch of the
Civil Service, 453

Churches, Jesuit, decoration of, i. 160;
music in, ib.; theatrical representa-
tions in, ib.

Cienfuegos, Cardinal, relates how the
Virgin interceded for a dead Jesuit,

i. 404-5; extravagance of, ii. 78
Cilicium, use of. i. 395

Circulus (Circle) disputation, ii. 248-9
Cisneros, Garcia de, i. 371
Cistercians, Jesuit opposition to, at
Magdeburg, ii. 98

Civilta cattolica , the mouthpiece of the
Vatican, ii. 340 and note ; on the
subordination of the State to the
Church, 340-2

Cleanliness not always next to godli-
ness, i. 289; lack of, during the
novitiate, 392-3

Clement VIII., Pope, and the Marian
Congregations, i. 165; on abuse of
confession, ii. 387

Clement IX., Pope, prohibits the Orders
from carrying on commerce, ii. 99
and note

Clement XI., Pope, Gonzalez appeals to,

ii. 51; flagrantly scouted by the
Jesuits, 53-65

Index

473

Clement XIII.. Pope, confirms the con-
demnation of Berruyer’s book, i. 52
Clement XIV., Pope, suppresses the
Jesuit Order, ii. 22, 66
Clement, Jacques, murders Henry III.
of France, ii. 328-9

Clermont, the Jesuit College authorities
at, and the attempt to murder
Henry IV. of France, ii. 335
Cleves, the author takes the State oath
at, i. 265

Coadjutors. (See Formed Coadjutors)
Cobleuce. anecdote of a nunnery at, i. 8
Cohen-blind attempts the life of Bis-
marck, i. 212

Colleges of Jesuits, i. 78 {note), 79, £0
Colmar, trading practices of the Jesuits
of, ii. 94-8

Cologne, the Jesuits settle at, i. 33;
Archbishop Melchers in his cell at,
257; the author studies for the law
at, 261 ; ascetic practices at, 387 ; the
author visits, ii. 421
Commerce and trade, Jesuit success in,
ii. 91-9

Communion, compulsory, in Jesuit
schools, i. 159; the author’s first
communion, 197-200

Compositio loci in the Exercises, i. 573
Concertation, nature of, i. 97; conduct
of, 143

Concina, Daniel, on Jesuit morality, ii.

292-3; Jesuit plot against, 317
Confession, mischief of early, i. 34 et
seqq.; how it destroys the young
conscience, 36-9; the monstrosity of
early confession, 43; frequency of
confession enjoined, and why, 44;
mechanical and compulsory, 137,
159; detrimental effect of general
confession in Jesuit schools, 162, 163;
as practised at Jesuit schools, 183,
198-9; wickedness of confession in
the coufessor’s bedroom, 202-3; as an
essential of ascetic uiscipline, 361-9;
freedom of confession denied to the
Jesuit, 361; used as a disciplinary
scourge, 362; disregarders of Jesuit
commands as to, may be starved,
362-3; of reserved sins, 363-4; impro-
priety of a repeated confession, 364;
seal of, violated, 365-7 ; aided by
the practice of conscience-searching,
368-9; the Particular Examination,
ib.,- Jesuit instructions on the con-
fession of women and nuns, ii. 124-5;
Jesuit violation of the confession of
sovereigns, 174-8; priestly qualifica-
tion to hear, 192 (note); how abused.
197, 387 ; veiled under the term Moral
Theology, 286; Jesuit exploitation
of. 386-7; real object of. 388
“ Confession-Book for Children/' cited,
i. 36 et seqq.

Confessionals, General Acquaviva's in-
structions as to the position and
size of, for women, ii. 128
Congregations, Marian, i. 163-180; of the
Guardian Angels, 164; of St. Aloysius
(see Marian Congregations); of the
Society of Jesus, 423-5 (see also
General Congregation, Procura-
torial Congregation, Provincial Con-
gregation); T.azarist Missionary Con-
gregation, ii. 55; M&moires de la
Congregation de la Mission, 55, 56,
57. 58, 59-65

Conscience weakened and destroyed by
confession, i. 36 et seqq.; what the
44 Statement of Conscience ” implies,
228; the sense of personal respon-
sibility ruined by the “ statement,”
296-7; the “statement” of first rate
importance, 342-8; how the “state-
ment” is effected, 344-5; frequency
of the “statement,” 345; abuses of
the “statement,” 346-8; degradation
of, by the Jesuits in their dealings
with sovereigns, 170-1; the use
of “ conscience cases,” 346 (note);
liberty of, an absurd doctrine, 351
Conscience-searching, ordinary and par-
ticular, i. 368-9

Consecration, the power of, 221-2
Constance, uuiversity at, established, ii.
42

Constitutions of the Society of Jesus,
touching scholars and other such
matters, i. 78; concerning the final
importance of obedience, 326 et seqq.;
on the “ Statement of Conscience,”
342-4; on denunciation, 348-9; on the
means of reporting (espionage), 352;
on compulsory frequent confession to
specified confessors, 362; sanction
violation of confession. 366; on the
use of, 383; experiments prescribed
by, 392-3; on penances, 395; author-
ship of. 407-8; summary of the ten
parts of. 408-11; quintessence of,
contained in the Formula Instituti,
413; are the Constitutions complete?
ii. 1 et seqq.; obscurity respecting,
intentional, 3; non-Christian char-
acter of. 30-2; cosmopolitanism of,
32; on the vow of chastity, 67; on
the scope of the vow of poverty,
71-2; the theory and practice of,
compared and contrasted, 105-32; on
the confessing of women, 124-5; for-
bid interference in politics and State
affairs, 133-4; prohibit Jesuits from
acting as the confessors of states-
men, 168; on the Humanities, 229;
on tyrannicide, 334; on keeping the
Jesuit lay brother in ignorance,
388-9; approved by the Papacy, 423;
cold and calculating regulations,
424-5

Consultors, the duties of, i. 352, 353, 424
Contemplation, a great feature of Jesuit
upbringing, i. 297

Contemplations of the Exercises, i. 373-5;

effect of, on sensitive natures, 381
Contzen, Professor Adam, ii. 314
Convents, the spirit that fills, i. 278;
difficulties which prevent adherents
from leaving, 279

Cordara, Julius Caesar, on the Chinese
and Indian Mission, ii. 58, 65; on
the Jesuit “ cooking ” of accounts,
89 ; on the avarice imputed to Jesuits,
102; his conversation with the King
of Sardinia on the boundless wealth
of the Jesuits, 103: on Jesuit effem-
inacy, 103-4; on the overweening
pride of the Jesuit Society, 106-9,
426; on Jesuit influence at the Courts
of Europe, 168; his Memoirs under
a ban at Ditton Hall, 225-6
Comely. Father, and the affair Tournon,
ii. 56, 57

Cornova on the compulsory teaching
cf Jesuits, i. 86-7; on Jesuit neglect

Index

474

of German, 110; condemns neglect
of poor scholars, 147; admits that
Jesuits proselytise at their schools,
158; defends the Jesuit system of
education, 192 .

Corporal punishment, futility of. l. 4o-6;

how Jesuits inflict, 148-50
Correspondence of pupils, mischievous
supervision of, at Jesuit schools, i.
141-2; grossly abused, 145
Cosmopolitanism of the Jesuit Order,
ii. 32 et seqq.; the heart of, 33
Coton, Father, ii. 183
Court chaplains, the status of, ii. 453
Court confessors, Jesuit, ii. 172-98; the
salaries of, 193
Crasset, Jean, ii. 198

Creighton, accomplice in the Jesuit plot
against Queen Elizabeth, ii. 149;
confessions of, 149-50; hi3 book in
favour of the succession of the King
of Scotland, 313-4

Oretineau-Joly on the discovery of MoS.
of the Monita at Prague and Pader-
horn, ii. 9 (note); admits Jesuit
hostility to heresy, 22; admits the
enormous wealth of the Jesuits in
France in 1773, 89; on the political
activity of Edward Petre, 157 ; jus-
tifies Jesuit activity in politics, 197-3;
on Liguori’s teaching, 287
Cross of Ashes at Kevelaer, ceremony
of, i. 32

Crucifix, as used by Jesuit students,
i. 182

Cyprian, Father Francis, the strange
case of, i. 303-4

Dackazat, John, i. 87
Dasbach, his safe challenge, ii. 320
D’Aubanton, betrayal of a confession of
Philip V.'s by, ii. 178; alleged author
of the Bull unigenitu3, 189; his evil
influence at the Spanish Court, it>.;
salary of, as confessor to the King,
193

Declarations of the Constitutions, i. 73
(note), 80

Decurio, duties of, i. 138-41
Deger’s “ Madonnas,” i. 124, ii. 397
Delatio , or Denunciation, i. 348 et
seqq.

Deibriick, Professor, commissions the
author to write for the Preussisclie
Jahrbiicher, ii. 449

Delrio, Professor, on permissible false-
hood, ii. 302-3

Deluge, Jesuit view of the. ii. 263
Demoniac possession, how to exorcise it,
i. 320-1 ; instances of, 321-3
Denbigh, the Earl of, i. 242
Denmark, Jesuit activity in, ii. 166-7
Denunciation in the Jesuit system of
education, i. 139-41; expounded by
the Constitutions, 348-9; a wholesale
secret detective agency, 349-51 ; un-
derhand method of securing the
consent of young students to, 350;
training in, 351-2; system of secret
reporting used in, 352-4; misery en-
tailed by the practice of, ii. 378-9
“ Deo gratias ” at the Stella Matutina,
i. 55

Deposition of Bishops, i. 257
Desertion from the Army, Jesuit opinion
of, ii. 346

Devil, Jesuit belief in the, i. 226; the

Devil at Babylon, 375; in Romish
dogma, 381, ii. 208-9

Devils, belief in, a feature of Jesuit
piety, i. 31)9-23; how to exorcise
them, 320-1; instances of possession,
321-3; names of the chief possessing
devils, 322

Dickens, Charles, as a classic at Stony-
hurst, i. 242
Diel, Father, i. 120
Diost, the asylum at, ii. 418
Discipline, the Master of, at Jesuit
schools, i. 149-50; thoroughness of,
within the Jesuit Order, ii. 379
Discretion, doctrine of, i. 34
Disputation, importance of, in the
scheme of Jesuit study, ii. 243-50;
various kinds of, 248-9; form of, 249;
use of Latin in, compulsory, 250;
specimen of the conduct of a, 258-60 ;
examples of subjects chosen for, at
Freiburg, 280-1

Dittou Hall, set aside for Jesuit students
of theology, i. 287; an experience
of the author’s at, 323; the “ table”
at, ii. 75; mysterious messages from,
101; the author’s stay at, for theo-
logy, 216-22, 413; the terrible environ-
ment of the Hall, 216; the author is
consecrated to the priesthood at,
222

Dogma, falseness of the Jesuit concep-
tion of, ii. 406

Ddllinger, Dr., records instances of

grotesque miracles, i. 312-13; dis-
covers documents reproaching the

Jesuits with their great wealth, ii.

102; Vol. III. of his “ Beitrage ”
creates a temporary sensation at
Dittou Hall, 225; his “History of

the Moral-Theological Disputes ” in
the Catholic Church, 396-7
Domenech, Abbot, ii. 16
Dominic, St., ii. 424

Dominican Orders, i. 164 and note;
Jesuit dealings with the Dominicans
at Colmar, ii. 96; alleged tyranny
of, 103 (note); arrogance of the
Jesuits towards, 108-9; Dominican
nuns and the Jesuit Order, 131; clear
of the flaws of the Jesuits, 424
Donat, Professor Josef, ii. 272-4
Donnes, a class of affiliate Jesuits, ii.
20

Doss, von Adolf, compositions of, pre-
ferred by Jesuits in Church service,

i. 160; Superior of the Jesuit settle-
ment at Mayence, 220; his appear-
ance, 225; becomes the author’s con-
fessor, 226; his foolish views about
Goethe and the German classics,
227-8; force of his influence, 229;
terrible interview with, at Marxheim,
249-50

Douai, Jesuit plot against the Catholic
College at, ii. 315-16
Drecker, Father, i. 121
Dreves, Guido Maria, ii. 371 (note)
Drostc-Vischcring-Erbdroste, Count, and
Catholic students’ unions, i. 246
Dryander, Dr., receives the author into
the Protestant State Church, ii. 452
Dudik on the confessing of sovereigns,

ii. 172

Dufrene, Father Maximilian, i. Ill
Duhr. B., explains how the Jesuit system
of education resembles that of the

Index

475

“ Brothers of the Common Life " at
Liege, i. 63; misleading criticism of,
auent Jesuit scholars and externs,
84; approves of use of Latin tor
ordinary conversation, 99; disin-
genuous assertions of, as to free
education of the Jesuits, 115-17; tries
to minimise the effect of the pub-
lication of the Daily Routine, 133
(note); his “ Studienordnung der
Geselischaft Jesu,” 184; on witch per-
secution by the Jesuits, 319 and note ;
on the genuineness of the Monita,
ii. 8, 9; qn the existence of affil-
iates, 20; defends the Jesuits in the
affair Tournon, 56, 57 ; his insinua-
tions against Bishop Palafox, 86-7 ;
defends Jesuit political activity
against the Protestants of Graz
in the sixteenth ceutury, 142-3; his
defence of Edward Petre, 155-7 ; on
the violation of the confession of
Maria Theresa, 175-6; instances of
his untrustworthiness, 283-5
Du Lac, supports Boulanger, ii. 164-5
Duplicia feasts among the Jesuits, ii.
75 (note)

Ebenhoch, Karl, the tragedy of, ii. 100-2
Ebner, E., answers Kelle's criticism of
the standard of Latin Grammar in
Jesuit schools, i. 69 (note); tries to
depreciate the Declarations of the
Jesuit Constitutions, 78; praises the
practice of Latin composition, 98;
his views about German classics,
110; ineffective reply to Jesuit stric-
tures on Jesuit education, 189 (note);
his notions of modern philosophy,
ii, 252; a surprise for, 281
Education, Jesuit, international, to
destroy patriotism and nationality,
i. 50-1; produces a “common" type
of man and woman, ib.; crushes
independence of thought and keeps
the mind in bondage, 51-2; quality
of actual instruction behind the
times, 52; description of the adminis-
tration and routine at the Stella
Matutina, Feldkirch, 54-60; eulogy
of Jesuit teaching greatly overdone,
61; lacks the creative spirit, 63:
practically unchanged during three
centuries, 64; the Batio Studiorum,
63-111; reactionary methods in Aus-
tria, 70-2; the teachers poorly
equipped, 72-4; grudging concessions
to public opinion, 74 ; retrograde
features of the Scheme of Study, 75;
the lost chances of Jesuit education,
76-7; egotism and selfishness of the
system, 77-84; Nostri considered
always, the externs casually, 77, 79-
80 ; limited attention to externs, 81 ;
one brand of teaching for all coun-
tries, 83; a system to last for cen-
turies, ib.; cardinal defect in Jesuit
conception of teaching as a pro-
fession, 84-6; the end of teaching,
85; regulations as to training of
teachers disregarded. 95-6; special
favour shown to the study of Latin,
96-114; an educational farce, 99;
neglect of the German tongue, 104;
disregard of the world’s classics, 107 ;
can show no world classic in German
and other tongues, 114; on the

alleged gratuitous teaching of the
Jesuits, 115-6; why Jesuit teaching
fails, 117; weighed by the author
and found wanting, 126; its real
aim, 129; number of educational
establishments in the Order in 1762,
129 (note); the so-called celebrated
pupils, 130; represses family life,
130-1; as authorised by the Batio
Studiorum , 135 et seqq,; police-liko
supervision, 137-42; espionage and
tale-bearing encouraged, 138-41; wor-
ship of wealth and aristocracy, 145-6;
treatment of poor scholars, 147 ;
likeness and unlikeness between
Jesuit schools and English public
schools, 148 (note); Jesuits and cor-
poral punishment, 148-50; and ex-
pulsion from school, 151; on the
prohibition of friendships, 151-2;
“ good ” pupils make bad scholars,
152; encourages superstition, 154-5;
proselytising at school, 157-8; piety
in the school, 158-63; use and in-
fluence of Marian Congregations,
163-80; the daily routine at a Jesuit
school, 181-4; espionage enjoined,
183; Jesuit strictures on the systems
of instruction and education, 184-95;
the question of unchastity, 203-8 ;
why their education always must
fail, ii. 432-4

Eicliendorf as a German classic, i. 108

Elizabeth. Queen, Parsons’ plot to mur-
der, ii. 149-53; excommunicated by
Pius V., 311

Elizalde, Michael de, on Jesuit morality,
ii. 297-8; his work on Probabilism
rejected by the Order, 298; threat-
ened by General Oliva, ib.

Encyclicals, Papal, the real source of,
ii. 255

Encyclopaedists in France overcome
Jesuitism, i. 128

“ End sanctifies the means, the,” ii.
320-7; Jesuit attitude to the maxim,
320; lawsuits regarding it, ib.

England, Parsons’ plot to depose Eliza-
beth from the throne of, ii. 149-53

Epping’s lectures on astronomy at
Blyenbeck. ii. 248

Equivocation, use of, ii. 302-3; Jesuit
justification of, 304-5

Erfurt, how the French prisoner at,
made his peace with the Church,
ii. 381

Espionage. (See Denunciation)

Esseiva, Father Joseph, illustrates Gen-
eral Anderledy’s mental gymnastics,
i, 174

Etiquette in the Jesuit Order, i. 356-7

Eulenberg, Court Marshal, ii. 461

Evangelical Alliance of Germany, as
seen through Jesuit glasses, ii. 361;
ignorance of Catholicism among the
members of, 452; mistaken tactics
of. against Ultramontanism, 465
(note)

Exaeten, the author enters the novi-
tiate at, for a few days, i. 259;
enters again, 270; reserved originally
for the novices. 288; hardship and
discomfort of life at, 288-9; seclu-
sion of, 292; devils at, 323; read-
ing aloud at meals, 394; the
author leaves, 406; its villa at
Oosen, ii. 77; the author appointed

Index

476

Scriptor at, 244, 270; becomes the
seat of the Phiiosophate, 369-70;
headquarters of the Stimmen aus
M aria-Laach and Die Katholischen
Missionen, 369, 370; the structural
improvements at, 369-70; the author
quits, for Portico, 411; the author
leaves, for ever, 420

Examen generate, craft of the, i. 351;
summary of the, 411; E. rigorosum ,
ii. 369

Examination, Particular, i. 368-9; pull-
ing the “ particular examination
chain/’ 369

Exercises, spiritual, effect of, on Jesuit
pupils, i. 162-3; nervous excitement
caused by, 162; the end and aim of,
163; used to win recruits for the
Jesuit priesthood, 214-5; terror in
the young inspired by melodramatic
addresses in the, 227; the author-
ship of, ascribed to the Virgin
and to God, 370; duration of, 371;
summary of the contents of, 371-6;
criticism of, 377-84; actual object
of, 378; two main characteristics of,
378-82; make every Jesuit every-
where of a uniform pattern, 379;
Director of, and his duties, 380;
pseudo-mysticism of, 380-2; high fees
charged for the Exercises, etc., ii.
80; value of the Exercises iu popular
missions, 382; utilised for political
purposes. 384-5

Experiments during the novitiate, i.
392-3

Expulsion from school, how effected by
Jesuits, i, 151

Externals, attention pafd to, iu Jesuit
labours, ii. 381-2

Eyre, Father, i. 240-1

Faber, Frederick William, ii. 31

Fah, Father Jacob, i. 171; consults with
Windthorst in Berlin, ii. 165; editor-
in-chief of the Stimmen aus M aria-
Laach and Die Katholischen Mis-
sionen, 244, 370; character of, 371;
sends the author to Brussels for
research work in history. 390; ig-
nores the author’s hints as to the
effect of his studies, 391; is de-
spatched to Berlin to prepare for a
Jesuit settlement there, 399-400; is
transferred to Brazil, 411 (note)

Falk. Dr., ii. 231

Faller, Father, General Prefect at Feld-
kirch, i. 197 ; his attempts to induce
the author to enter the Jesuit Order,
217 ; auuoyance at their temporary
failure, 218

Falsification of the text, a Jesuit method
of embellishment, ii. 284 (note), 285

Family life and the Jesuit system of
education, i. 130-1

Farnese, Margaret Duchess of, ii. 129

Fatherhood of God the basis of true
religion, ii. 456-8

Feldkirch, the Jesuit school at, i. 49;
description of the buildings, ad-
ministration, daily routine, 54-60;
fees at, 116; Government grants at,
*b.; why the system of education
at, was a failure, 117-9; teachers
at, in the author’s time, 118; im-
provement in teaching at, due to
State pressure, 119; negative results

of the education at, 129; mixed
nationality of the teaching staff at,
132; jubilee of, 133, 148; how wealth
and rank were favoured at, 146;
punishment at, 150; the best scholars
were the day boys, 152; the library
at, 153; curious “atmosphere” at,
155-7; gjuttony tacitly encouraged,
156; sports at, ib. ; game of “run-
ning the gauntlet/' 156-7; Marian
observances at, 161; foolish rites iu
honour of the Virgin at, 179; mid-
night Mass on Christmas Eve at..
201-2; the author’s confessors and
teachers at, 202-10; atmosphere of,
208

Fdnelon denounces Father La Chaise,
ii. 183-4

Ferdinand I. and the Jesuit Professors
of Theology at Vienna, ii. 32-3
Ferdinand II., under the influence of
the Jesuits, ii. 40; and the Chan-
cellorship of Prague University, 52-3;
a ready tool of the Jesuits, 159; an
instance in which he withstood his
confessor, 182

Fessler, Ignatius, and the discovery of
the confessions of eminent persons,
ii. 177

Fessler, Joseph, i. 200
Feuerbach, Anselm, records a priest’s
confession of murder, ii. 366-7
Fiesole, Jesuit headquarters at, i. 264
Filling, Father Jacob, his fondness for
the author, i. 205; his feats in pre-
varication, 213; tries to persuade
the author to become a Jesuit, 217
Finckenstein, Count Karl von, on the
author’s recantation, i. 6; introduces
the author to Orthodoxy and Con-
servatism, ii. 450; applies for a post
in the State service for the author,
459

Flores mariani, i. 161
Flugschriften zur Wehr und Lehr, ii.
361

Foley, his free and easy manner of
dealing with history, ii. 284 (note)
Forer, repudiation of the Monita by,
ii. 9

Formed coadjutors of the Society of
Jesus, i. 415; simple vows of, 417;
final vows of, 418

Formula Instituti, text of, i. 413-4; con-
tents of, ii. 3-4

Formula scribendi , i. 352 et seqq.
Forsler, Emerich, on Jesuit political
activity at Graz, ii. 178
Fox’s Commentary on Demosthenes’ de
Corona, a “ classic ” of Jesuit
scholarship, ii. 229

France, favoured by the Jesuits in the
war of 1870-1. i. 233-4; Cardinal
Reisach’s prophecy regarding, 238;
the “patriotism” of German Jesuits
as evidenced in the war of 1870-1,
ii. 36-8; Boulanger’s plot against,
supported by the Jesuits, 164-5
Francis. St., how he assisted justice,
ii. 304, 305; a wiser man than Loyola,
424

Franciscan Orders, i. 164 and note ;
Jesuit hauteur towards, ii. 108;
Franciscan nuns and the Jesuit
Order. 131 ; cannot be condemned as
can the Jesuits, 424
Franco-German war of 1870-1, i. 232-3;

Index

477

Jesuit hatred of Prussia, ib.; the
Prussian victories. 232; the war mis-
represented, 232-3

Frankfort - on - the - Main, the author’s
residence at, ii. 421

Frankfort - on - the - Oder, County Court
judgeship at, offered to the author,
ii. 462

Franzelin, Cardinal, on mental reserva-
tion, i. 264-5

Frederick, Cardinal, of Hesse, the im-
moral confessor of, i. 207
Frederick II., the Great, as seen through
Jesuit glasses, i. 122
Frederick William IV. and the author’s
father, i. 7

Freemasonry, denounced and misrepre-
sented by Jesuits, i. 154; attitude
of Ultramontanes to, 224
Freethinker, the, who is governed by
morals is not far from God, ii. 456
(note)

Frehner's revolt, ii. 281
Freiburg, Latin Grammar in the Jesuit
College of St. Michael at, i. 69;
Jesuit intrigues at the University
of, ii. 40-2; low state of Jesuit
learning at, 280-1

French League supported by the Jesuits,
ii. 161-2

Frick's “ Manual on Logic for the use
of Schools,” ii. 257-8
Friday, specially sacred to the Heart
of Jesus, i. 307

Friedrich, Professor J., on the soul-
destroying effect of Jesuit teaching
on the German students at Rome,

i. 342; and the report of the poison-
ing of Cardinal Tournon, ii. 55

Friendships at school, Jesuit objections
to, i. 151-2; Father Link recognises
their value, 210 ; friendship forbidden
within the Jesuit Order, ii. 378-9
Frins, Professor Victor, a constant ad-
viser of Windthorst, ii. 166, 411
(note); his opinion about Protestant
girls, 367; succeeds the author in
Berlin, 411 (note)

Froment, Chancellor of the University
of Pans, on Jesuit self-aggrandise-
ment, ii. 47-8

Fiirstenberg, Baron Klemens von, on
the German Jesuits and the war of
1870-1, i. 233

Fiirstenberg, Count Wratislaw von, in-
trigues of, ii. 183

Galen, Count Ferdinand von, i. 238
Galen, Count Max von, i. 227
Garnet, Father Henry, involved in Jesuit
activity in England, ii. 46, 111;
friendship with Lady Anne Vaux, 128;
concerned in Parsons’ plot against
Queen Elizabeth, 152; freely employs
equivocation, 309-11; a learned and
saintly man, 311; his views touching
the killing of the king, 336; on just
and unjust laws, 437 (note)

Gastel, Johannes, on effective Jesuit ven-
geance, ii. 382

Gauntlet-running at Jesuit schools, i.
156-7

Gelsenkirchen, scenes during the mis-
sion at, ii. 380-1

Genelli, opinion of, as to Jesuit chastity,

ii. 67

General Congregation, the highest court

of the Society of Jesus, i. 422-3; how
often held, 423; powers of, id.; sum-
moned by, ib.; composition of, ib.;
voting power of, ib.; the Decrees
of, carefully edited for publication,
ii. 5

General of the Society of Jesus, Head
of the Order, i. 419 ; elected aut vitam
aut culpam, 419-20; qualifications
for, ib.; powers of, ib.; supervision
over, 420-1; deposition of, 421-2;
activity of, 422; subordination of,
to the General Congregation, 422-3

Gerard, Father John, secures money for
the Order, ii. 11-2, 90-1; how ne
acknowledged Elizabeth as Queen of
England, 311

German tongue, Jesuit neglect of the,

i. 104; nominally adopted as a sub-
ject of study, 105; this reform
compulsory, 106; Jesuit ordinance
aneut German classics, 109; great
German classics denounced by von
Doss, 227-8; by von Hammerstein,

ii. 230-4; by Baumgartner, 234-45

Germania , character of, ii. 376; organ

of the Centre Party, 411 (note);
attacks the author, 460

Germany, unity of, the real object of
the war of 1870-1, i. 232-3; Jesuit
hatred of the idea, 233-4; strong
ultramontane sentiment in the
Centre Party, 246-7; sent to Canossa
by the Kulturkampf, 256; Jesuit
scheme to subjugate, ii. 158-9; return
of the Jesuits to, 166; activity of
Jesuits in, 384; dominated by the
Centre Party, 462; unfortunate re-
sults to. of the Kulturkampf, 464-5;
danger of Jesuitism to, 466

Gertt, Reinhold, condemns the secret
drinking in Jesuit settlements, i.
188

Gfrdrer ascribes the Thirty Years’ War
to the Jesuits, ii. 158-9

Ghosts, Catholic belief in, and fear of.

i. 26-8; cruelty of the doctrine to
the young, 28; haunted houses at
Zeil and Miiffendorf, 27-8

Gindely’s account of the Jesuit pro-
ceedings against Wallenstein, ii.
179-80-, records an instance of
Ferdinand II. ’s resistance to the
Jesuits, 182; as garbled by Duhr,
283

Ginzel, Canon, anent the violation of
the confession of Maria Theresa, ii.
175-6

Giphanius, Professor, on Jesuit intrigue
at Ingolstadt, ii. 39

Goch, the author’s momentous discourse
at, ii. 419

“ God ” as conceived by Catholic theo-
logy and in part also by Protestant,

ii. 408-9; the Fatherhood of God the
basis of true religion, 456-8

Goethe, Jesuit opinion of, i. 109; Jesuit
ordinance concerning German clas-
sics issued in the year of Goethe’s
death, ib.; Von Doss on the over-
rated renown of, 227 ; “ Behold the
man whom thou didst worship!”
228; von Hammerstein’s apprecia-
tion of, ii. 230-2; Baumgartner’s
tirade on, 236-45

Goldie, Francis, records Alonzo Rodri-
guez’s senseless literalism, i. 329

Index

4 7 8

Goltz, Provost von der, shares the too
common Protestant ignorance of
things Catholic, ii. 451

Gonzalez, Thyrsus, author of a missing
Decree, ii. 5; Pope approves of his
work against Probabilism, 50-1;
forbids the teaching of modern
philosophy, 253; condemns Jesuit
teaching on morals, 292; Jesuit per-
secution of, 295 and note ; his state-
ment of the position, 296; real
reason why Jesuits attack him,
297

Gossler, von, ii. 231

Gotthein, wrongs of, concerning Loyola’s
asceticism and piety, i. 299 (note)

Gdttingen, author attends lectures at,

i. 122; parents' reluctance to allow
him, 251; complexion of his stay
there, 252; studies for the Law at,
261

Gottlieb, the pen-name of Tilmann
Pesch, ii. 357

Grand National at Liverpool, Stony-
hurst students at, i. 241

Granderath defends capital punishment
for heretics, ii. 356

Graz, Jesuit political activity at, ii.
140-3, 179

Greenway, connection of, with the Gun-
powder Plot, ii. 310

Gregorovius, influence of, on the author,

ii. 406

Gregory XIII., Pope, confirms the Marian
Congregation at Rome, i. 165, 169;
sanctions purchases for profit by
the Society of Jesus, 413; ordains
that the Jesuit's simple vows con-
stitute an impediment to marriage,
417; concerned in Parsons’ plot
against Queen Elizabeth, ii. 149;
confirms the deposition of Elizabeth,
312

Gregory XV., Pope, and the Marian Con-
gregations, i. 165

Gregory XVI., Pope, canonises Liguori,
ii. 286

Gretser is instructed to refnte the
Monita, ii. 7

Grimm, Father Leopold, on the custom
of confessing boys in the confessor’s
bedroom, i. 203

Guardian angels, Catholic teaching
about, i. 26; Congregations of the,
164; use of the guardian angel
( angelus custos ) in the novitiate,
355

Guignard hanged for complicity in the
attempt to murder Henry IV. of
France, ii. 335

Guise, Duke of, involved in Parsons’
plot against Queen Elizabeth, ii.
149-51

Gunpowder Plot, Duhr’s tenderness for
the, i. 284; Garnet’s connection with
the, ii. 309, 310

Gury, prevalence of his textbook of
Moral Theology, ii. 288; his teaching
on adultery, ii. 309

Gustav Adolf Verein, mistaken tactics
of. against Ultramontanism, ii. 465
(note)

Gustavus Adolphus, the three " I/a ”
whom he wished to see hanged, ii.
183

Gymnasium, superiority of the educa-
tion at the State, over that of the
Jesuits, i. 118-9, 124

Haag Castle, i. 1

Habsburg, inordinate ambition of the
House of, ii. 159

Hahn-Hahn, Countess Ida, novels by,
approved by the Jesuits, i. 153; com-
poses the “ Cradle Song of a Polish
Mother,” 211

Hahn’s book on Saint Teresa censored,
ii. 269

Haller, Father, the daggers of Jesuit
political activity in Austria, ii.
139

Hammerstein, Baron Ludwig von, on
the German classics, ii. 230-4; his
appreciation of Goethe, 230-2; of
Schiller, 232; of Lessing, 232-3; on the
predominance of the Church over
the State, 342-4; on the evil of reli-
gious toleration, 352; his hostility
to State schools, 439-40
Hammerstein, Baron Wilhelm von, pro-
prietor of the Kreuzzeitung , ii. 449;
the author meets him, 450-1
Harnack, Adolf, and the genuineness
of the Monita , ii. 7; his lectures on
dogma at Berlin University, 403;
what his influence lacks, 403-4
Harrach, Cardinal von, struggle of, at
Prague, against the Jesuits, ii. 52-3
Hartmann, Father, lawsuit at Strau-
bing, ii. 100-2

Hatzfeld, Countess Sophie, i. 245
Hausherr, Father, becomes confessor of
the author’s mother, i. 234 (note);
his influence, 249

Helfert, Alexander von, reproaches the
Jesuits for their addiction to a dead
language not properly understood.

i. 104; condemns Jesuit neglect of
German literature, 110; criticises the
abuses of the Jesuit system of edu-
cation, 192-3

Heligoland, the author’s stay in, ii. 422;
his acquaintance with Count Karl
von Finckenstein in, 450
Hell, Abb6, as a Professor of Astro-
nomy, ii. 280

Hell, as portrayed in the Exercises, i.
572-3; monstrosity of the belief in,

ii. 407; the hell dogma a priest’s
dogma, 409

Helten, Father, considers Goethe a
heathen, i. 109; Professor of Greek,
German and ^Esthetics at Wynands-
rade, 121; astonished at his pupils’
excellent Greek exercises, 123-4
Henry III. of France, murder of, ap-
proved by the Jesuit Mariana, ii. 144;
demands the support of the Jesuits,
161-2; murder of, justified by the
Jesuit Mariana and the Society,
328-9

Heresy, especially attacked by Jesuits,
flict with the Jesuits, ii. 191; murder
of, by Ravaillac, 333; public fury at
the murder, and its effect on the
Jesuit Society, ib.; Chatel's attempt
to murder, 335

Heresy, especially attacked by Jesuits,
ii. 21 et 8eqq.; absolutely condemned
by the Imago, 350; Jesuit defence
of the capital punishment of here-
tics, 354-7; the various punishments
for, 356

Heroism of the Jesuits, ii. 379; of
humanity, 380

Hertling, Baron von, president of the
Gorresgesellschaft, i. 224

Index

479

Hilgers on the need for and usefulness
oi the Index Expurgatorius, ii. 274-5

Hoensbroech Castle, i. 2

Hoensbroech, Adrian, Count of, the
author’s brother, attends the Jesuit
school at Feldkirch, i. 49; death of,
253

Hoensbroech, Antonia von, the author’s
sister, bitterly hostile to Prussia, i.
211; her anger with the author
about the German victories in 1870,

i. 233; marriage to Count Franz
Xavier Korfl - Schmising - Kerssen-
brock, i. 252; death of, ib.; entirely
subjugated by her Jesuit confessors,

ii. 130

Hoensbroech, Clement, Count of, tho
author’s brother, attends Feldkirch
and the State Gymnasium, i. 118;
marriage of, ii. 400

Hoensbroech, Franz Egon, Marquis of,
the author’s father, character of,
i. 3; his blindness, ib.; his view of
religion, 4-5; his politics, 6-7; rela-
tions to the king, 7-8; his career,
10- makes a pilgrimage to La
Salette, but is not cured, 28-9; before
the shrine at Kevelaer, 31; induced
to sanction Jesuit influence in his
home, 53; his coldness to Prussia
in the war with Austria, 210; death
of, 252

Hoensbroech, Lotliar, Count von, the
author’s brother, death of, i. 253

Hoensbroech, Luise, Countess of, the
author’s sister, takes the veil, i. 48;
urges the author to join the Jesuit
Order, 247

Hoensbroech, Marie, Countess von, the
author’s sister, engagement of, to
Count Franz zu Stolberg-Stolberg,
i. 242-3; a marriage of convenance,
243; urges the author to enter into
the Jesuit Order, 247; leads the first
German pilgrimage to Lourdes, 253;
goes to Algiers for her health, 261 ;
birth of her daughter, Monica, 265;
death of, 269

Hoensbroech, Matilda, Marchioness of,
the author’s mother, i. 3; nobility of
her character. 10-11; devotion to her
husband, 10; in religion a “whole”
Catholic, 12-14; depth of her credul-
ity, 13-14; her curious indifference to
the Bible, 14; her fervour and fana-
ticism, 15; her dislike of the Pro-
testant dynasty of Prussia, 15-17 ;
her hatred of Prince Bismarck,
16-17; undertakes a pilgrimage to
La Salette, 28; her faith superior to
her disappointment, 29; her fre-
quent devotions at the shrine at
Kevelaer, 31; comes wholly under
Jesuit influence. 33, ii. 129-30; her
anti-Prussian bitterness, i, 210-2;
quarrels with her brother about
Prince Bismarck, 212; her fanatical
faith in infallibility, 222; coolness
with the Bishop of Mayence, ib.;
punishes the author for defending
the Bishop, ib . ; entirely under the
control of Father Behrens, her con-
fessor, 234 ; makes over part of her
fortune to the Jesuits, ib. (note);
lives in widowed seclusion at Rackel-
witz, 234 (note); strongly opposes
the author’s delay to enter into the

Jesuit Order, 236; hands over Blyen-
beck Castle in Holland as a retreat
for the exiled Jesuits, 248; is en-
dowed with all the graces and dis-
pensations of the Order, ii. 129
Hoensbroech, Paul, Count of, the
author, birth of, i. 3; parentage of,
3-17; anecdote about the Latin and
German text of the '* Ave, Maria,”
5; routine of home life, 18-20; re-
ligion the dominant note of his
education. 20-1; suffered from de-
nominational exclusiveness, 20;
taught to minister at Mass, 22;
plays the Mass-game, 22-3; how his
early piety was fostered, 24 et seqq.;
steeped in sham mysticism ana
asceticism, 25 et seqq.; terrified by
ghosts, 28; his frequent visits to the
shriue at Kevelaer, 29 et seqq.; de-
grading effect of the superstition,
32; comes under Jesuit influence,
34; his first confession, ib,; real-
ises the horrors of ultramontane
“ morality,” 36 et seqq.; the general
run of his education, 45; doubts and
criticism repelled, ib.; is subjected
to corporal punishment, 45-6; de-
fects of his education, 46-8; is sent
to Feldkirch, 49, 53; account of his
school, 54-60; describes the “O
Sanctissima,” 57; nearly loses his
life, 58; concludes that the Jesuit
system of instruction is bad, 61; dis-
covers the Jesuit teachers were
poorly equipped, 73; learns how
Latin verses were composed, 99 ; his
“guardian angel,” 100; on the scant
attention paid at school to German,
ib.; never saw a Latin play at Feld-
kirch, 106; rebuked for admiring
Goethe, 109; why his education at
Feldkirch was comparatively a fail-
ure, 117-9; the entrance examination
at Mayence Gymnasium, 118; at-
tends the college at Wynandsrade,
119-24; had already practised law,
120; his course at Bonn and Gottin-
gen, 122; is reprimanded for plain
speaking, 123; his summary of
Jesuit instruction as he found it,
126; is sent to arrange a difficulty
concerning a Marian Congregation
at Cologne, 171-2; his years as a
member of the Marian Congregation,
179; reminiscences of Feldkirch, 196-
218; cured of home-sickness, 197;
his first Communion, 197.-200; how
midnight Mass was celebrated at
Feldkirch on Christmas Eve, 201-2;
his confessors at, 202-6, 208-10; of-
fends his family by his sympathies
with Prussia, 211-3; efforts made to
entice him into the Jesuit Order,
216-8; attends the Gymnasium at
Mayence, 219-20; defends the Bishop
of Mayence and incurs his mother’s
censure, 222; under the strange spell
of Adolf von Doss, 226-7 ; German
essay and its fateful motto, 230; a
change silently at work in his mind,
231; his invincible patriotism. 232-3;
his youthful love for his cousin and
its effect on him, 235-6; postpones
entering on his novitiate, 236; inter-
views Manning. 239; attends Stony-
hurst College, 240-2; disgusted at the

480 Index

laxity of the students' morals, 240-1 ;
the courses in Latin and philosophy
both poor, 240-2; studies law at
.Bonn, 243-4; some of his fellow-
students, 244; abets the Jesuit in-
solence towards the Old Catholics,
244-5; joins the Catholic Students’
Union, 246; his cousin takes the veil,
250; he i3 haunted with the thought,
“ End of my love; entrance into the
Order,” ib.; narrow escape from
death in a railway accident, ib.; a
dilemma of Diviue Providence, 250-1 ;
is disqualified purposely for the
army, 253-4; the reason why, 254 ;
disastrous effect of the Kulturkampf.
256; he joins the German pilgrimage
to Lourdes, 258-9; enters the novi-
tiate at Exaeten, 259; the mental
agony he suffered, 260-1; visits Al-
giers, 261-2; visits Rome, 262-3;
acquires some of the Pope’s cast-off
garments as relics, 263; as county
court judge takes the oath at Cleves
with mental reservation, 265; be-
seeches the intercession of Leo XIII.
for his sister Marie, 268; sees his
cousin at Frankfort and his love
for her is revived, 269; enters
Exaeten again, 270; is examined as
a postulant, 282; becomes a novice,
285; gratitude to Jesuits for teach-
ing him self-control, 385; his prac-
tical duties during novitiate, 392-3;
examples of his self-mortification,
393-4; how lie acquired clear enun-
ciation, 394; his experience of
peniteutial practices, 394-5; his sense
of repugnance to the Jesuit Order,
395 et seqq.; his simple faith in the
system, 396-7; he is repelled by the
rule requiring separation from and
renunciation of parents, 398 et seqq.;
how he trod his mother underfoot,
401; his zealous effort to become a
complete Jesuit, 402; may take the
devotional vows, 402-3; he receives
a belated letter before leaving
Exaeten, 405; becomes a scholastic,
406; extract from Austritt to show
how the Jesuits crush patriotism,
ii. 34-6; his experience of the effects
of poverty, 73-80 ; tells the painful
story of Karl Ebenhoch’s deathbed,
100-2; is intended to be the confessor
of aristocratic women because of his
social rank, 130; is the victim of
Tilmann Pesch’s jealousy. 131-2; dis-
covers that the Jesuits support
Boulanger’s designs on France, 164-5;
years at Wynandsrade for Humanity
and Rhetoric, 201-14; assailed by
doubts about the Order and the
Church, 202-9; his Parthian victory,
209; ascetic life at Wynandsrade,
210-11; sufferings at Aix-la-Chapelle,
212; goes to Blyenbeck for Philo-
sophy, 214-6; renounces his property,
215; takes the first step to the
priesthood, 215; goes to Ditton Hall
for Theology, 216-22; is consecrated
to the priesthood, 222; his mental
agony on the occasion of the reading
of his first Mass, 222-3; his experi-
ence of swallowing the host, 223;
is troubled by the doctrines of
the Trinity and Original Sin, 224;

becomes Scriptor at Exaeten, 244,
2/0; his progress in Philosophy ana
Theology officially approved, 269;
his insanity hinted at, ib.; his dis-
cussion about the Creation, 281-2;
is shocked at the atmosphere of
falsehood in which the Jesuit stu-
dents are trained, 318-19; teats at
law the maxim “ The end sanctifies
the means,” 320-1; his sentiments
on taking up residence at Exaeten
as Scriptor, 570; assistant editor of
the Stimmen axis Maria-Laach and
Vie Katholischen Alissionen, ib.; his
relations with Fah, the chief editor,
371; his intimacy with the Provincial
of the German Proviuce and its
close, 372-4; declines the post of
tutor to the sons of the Austrian
Ambassador, 374; assists at the
Mayence Conference that founded
the National Union for Catholic
Germany, 375 ; undertakes all manner
of pastoral work, 380, 384-6; how he
absolved a murderess, 386 and note ;
his practice in the matter of con-
fession, 388; specialises in the history
of the Church and the Papacy, 390;
the consequences of his studies of
this subject, ib.; visits Brussels for
research, 390-1 ; learns that there are
two sides to the Papacy, 391 ; is
instructed to defend the Papacy,
392; success of his pamphlet on
Church and State, 393; is commis-
sioned to write in defence of the
Jesuit Order, 393; his pamphlet
“ Why should the Jesuits not return
to Germany?” 393-4; his pamphlet
“Christ, or Anti-Christ,” 394; de-
clines to collaborate with Tilmann
Pesch, 394-5; hi3 literary labours
appreciated and depreciated by the
same people, 395; is despatched to
Berlin to prepare for a Jesuit settle-
ment, 399; his instructions how to
act a 3 a Jesuit ambassador, 399-400;
marries his brother, 400 ; attends
lectures in Berlin University, 403-4;
Treitschke’s influence on, 405; pa-
triotism reawakes, ib.; the liberators
of the mind of, 405-7; revolts at the
chief Catholic dogmas, 407-9; agony
of his mental conflict, 409-11; decides
to enter the tertiate, 411; is ill with
diphtheria, ib.; experience as a ter-
tiary, 412-5; his mental sufferings
as the tertiate closed, 414-5; takes
the final decision and leaves the
Order and the Church, 416-22; the
accidents that enabled him to leave
the Order undetected, 419-22; the
question of his temporary use of
the money he collected for Brazil,
419-20, 420 (note); sojourns at

Cologne, Paris and Frankfort-on-
Main, 421; falls ill, 422; takes up
his permanent residence in Berlin,
ib.; the question of apostacy, ib.;
the wrench from Catholicism, 448;
his first commissions for the Press,
449; discovers his life-work in ex-
posing Ultramontanism, ib.; gravi-
tates towards Liberalism and free-
thought, 450; joins the Protestant
State Church, 452; his objections to
any connection between State and

Index

481

Church, 452-5; statement of his
present religious position, 455-8;
unconsciously alarms Count Caprivi.
459 ; his long conversation with
Wilhelm II., 459; the Kaiser’s pro-
mise, 460; goes to Kiel to quality
for the post of Landrat, 460-1 ; is
married, 461 ; his wife’s severe ill-
ness, 461-2; Count Waldersee inter-
venes on his behalf, 461 ; further
interview with the Kaiser and what
came of it, 462-3; is refused a lec-
tureship at a University, 463; and
also denied the diplomatic service,
464; develops his future life-work,
464; his labours uot in vain, 466;
encouraged bv hope for the future
of the race, 467

Hoensbroech, William, Count of, the
author's brother, at Feldkirch. i.
49; found the equipment imperfect
compared with that at the State
Gymnasium, 118; visits Algiers, 261;
marriage of, 266; liow the death of
a daughter of William’s affects the
author, ii. 410-11

Hoffaus, Paul, on Jesuit vice in the
Upper German Province, ii. 69-70;
deplores the growing luxury of the
Order, 81; deplores Jesuit interfer-
ence in politics, 193-4
Hohenlohe, Prince, refuses the author
admission into the diplomatic ser-
vice, ii. 464

Hohenzollerns, Jesuit designs against,
ii. 385

Homonna, ascetic practices at the
College of, i. 386
Hompesch, Count, i. 8
Hospitieren at Berlin University, ii. 403
(note), 405

Houses of Jesuits, i. 78 (note)

Hovel, Father, receives the author at
Exaeten, i. 259, 270; approves of the
author’s conduct as a novice, 403;
Rector at Ditton Hall. ii. 217
Humanistic studies of the scholasticate,
ii. 228-45

Humility of the Jesuit Order, ii. 105-6
Hungary, Jesuit political activity in
1655 in, ii. 144-6

Ibafiez on the Jesuits in Paraguay, ii. 6
Ignatius Day, St., i. 291
Imago primi saeculi Societatis Jesu on
the authorship of the Constitutions,
i. 408; on the Jesuits’ undying
hatred of heretics and heresy, ii.
24-5; a centennial memorial of the
work of the Order, 112, 113; its
boastfulness an annoyance to the
Order, tb.; the Jesuits' attempt to
ascribe it to “young scholastics,’’
112-14; alleged to have been written
by Bollandus, 114; description of the
pictures in. 115-18; summary of the
contents of the six books, 119-22;
its self-glorification revolting, 122-3;
on Jesuit morality. 301; explicitly
condemns heresy, 350
“ Immaculate Conception, The," at
Lourdes, i. 258

Imprimatur, the Jesuit, ii. 266
Index of Forbidden Books. Jesuit plea
for, ii. 274-5

Indies, East, Jesuit trading in the, ii.
91

2 F

Indifferents of the Society of Jesus, i.
416

Individuality rigorously repressed by
Jesuit discipline, i. 296 et seqq.;
effaced by asceticism. 326; the in-
struments whereby Jesuitism mur-
ders the will. 342-84
Infallibility of the Pope, i. 221 ; the doo-
triue the occasion of controversy in
the author’s family, 222; German
bishops’ unconditional acceptance
of, 223-4

Informations, based on espionage, ob-
tained about nominees to posts in
the Society of Jesus, i. 425-7
Ingolstadt. morbid excesses of Jesuit
scholars at, i. 178; Jesuit intrigues
at University of, ii. 38-40
Innocent III., Pope, and the apparition
of a virgin, i. 305

Innocent X., Pope, attempts to reform
the practice of appointing Superiors,

i. 367; fixed the intervals of the
session of the General Congregation
of the Jesuit Society. 424; letter of,
touching reforms of the Order, ii. 5;
letter to, on the wealth of the Order
in America, 86-8; requires the Jesuits
to refrain from political activity,
144

Innocent XI., Pope, sauctions Gonzalez’s
■work against Probabilism, ii. 51,295;
requires the Society of Jesus to
submit to the Pope, tb. ; severely
censures the Jesuits for their con-
duct in the Indian and Chinese
Mission, 65; condemns Jesuit teach-
ing on morals, 292; sees the dangers
of Probabilism, 296; on the use of
ambiguity. 304

Innocent XIII., Pope, receives a me-
morial from the Jesuits touching
the Indian Mission, ii. 60 (note);
receives a report from Tournon
about his persuasion by the Jesuits
in China, 63

Inquisition, and Loyola’s letter on
obedience. 336-7; founded by Loyola,

ii. 23

Insinuation as a means of obtaining
wealth, ii. 82

Institute of the Society of Jesus, con-
tents of the, i. 142; Formula lnsti-
tuti, 413-4; Substantialia Institute,
414; difficulty of procuring copies
of the Institute, ii. 1 (note)
Instruction as compared with education,
i. 127. (See Education)

Instructor, the official Director of the
tertiate, ii. 412

Intellect, Jesuit regulations to hamper
and stifle the working of, ii. 262-4
Internationalism, the hall-mark of Jesuit
education, i. 50-2; and of the Order
in all its works, 90; sedulously fos-
tered, 131-3; the proper use of, at
a proper age. 133

Intrigue, love of, the ruin of Jesuit
power, ii. 432

Jahnel, Catholic Provost, the author’s
host in Berlin, ii. 399; character of,
401; he visits the author after the
latter’s marriage, tb. (note)

James II. of England, alleged to be an
affiliate of the Jesuit Society, ii. 17;
the Jesuit Petre and, 153

Index

482

Janiszewski, Dr., i. 257

Janitor in Jesuit schools, duty of, i.
144

Jansenism, Jesuit plot against, ii. 315,
316

Japan, Jesuits’ policy in, ii. 365

Jardine, I)., his “Narrative of the Gun-
powder Pot ” cited, ii. 128, 284, 309-11;
his criticism of Garnet's equivoca-
tion, 310-11

Jerome, St., on the renunciation of his
mother, i. 401; on opposition to
heretics, ii. 25

Jesuits, influence of, established at
Hoeusbroech, i. 33; expulsion of,
from Germany, 53; school manage-
ment of, 61-2; value of their teach-
ing overrated, 61, 63; their control
of education in Austria, 70-2; their
lost chances in teaching, 76-7; ter-
minology of Jesuit dwellings, 78
(note); their belauded altruism non-
existent, 79-82; how they push the
use of Jesuit textbooks, 82-3; sup-
pression of, by Clement XIV., 86;
obedience the first Jesuit law, 88;
international in all their activities,
90; and the study of Latin, 96-114;
untruthfulness sanctioned by the
Order, i. 100, ii. 301-19; neglect of the
German language, i. 104; German
classics contemned, 108; their esti-
mate of Goethe, 109; have produced
no great classic, 114; have no system
of free education, 116; greed of the
Order, ib.; in face of attack, 128;
their adroit advertising, 130; why
Jesuits can never become good
teachers, 134-5; their attitude to
rank and riches, 145-6; and to
poverty, 147-8; corporal punishment
among, 148-50; and expulsion from
school, 151; reasons why friendships
at school are forbidden, 151-2; and
freemasonry, witchcraft and magic,
154-5; and proselytism, 157-8; various
aspects of Jesuit piety, 158-63; really
control the Marian Congregations,
163-80; allow of no Order but one,
166; suppression and resuscitation of
the Order, 168; daily routine at a
Jesuit school, 181-4; charged with
trying to destroy or remove in-
criminating documents in public
lihraries, 189; alleged unchastity of,
203-8; their constant hatred of
heresy, 213; hoped for the success
of France in the war of 1870-1, 233-4;
their singular notions of patriotism,
ib.; excellent haters, 240; though
legally prohibited in England their
settlements numerous and churches
fine, ib.; lax supervision of the
students’ morals at Stonyhurst,
240-1; expelled from Germany, 248;
their philosophy of clothes, 284-5;
good preachers, 292: piety of the
Order, 295 et seqq.; the grotesque or
blasphemous miracles recounted in
Jesuit literature, 299-325: ascetic
disciple of the Order considered in
full, 326 et seqq.; abuse of confession,
361-9; their famous motto, 365; flout
the Pope, 367, 368 (note); subtly
supported by the Exercises, 378;
their power of enduring physical
pain, 385; the inner constitution of

the Order, 407-27 ; foundation of the
Society. 407; summary of the Con-
stitutions, 408-11 ; privileges extended
to the Society, 412-3; the Formula
Instituti, 413; Substantialia InstU
tuti, 414; degrees of the Society,
414-6; distribution of the Order, 416;
number of members in 1773 and at
present, ib.; various kinds of vows,
416-8; government of, 418-27; the
head of the Order, 418-23; concealed
statutes of, ii. 5-7 ; their activity in
England, 11-2, 17 ; how dismissed
members are treated, 12-3; affiliates
of the Society, 13-21; bitter hostility
of, to heresy, 21-30 ; the non-Christian
spirit of the Order, 30 et seqq.; cos-
mopolitanism of, 32-8; their intri-
gues at various universities, 40-8;
their attitude to the secular clergy,
44-8; nature of their self-sacrifice,
48; their violation of the vow of
obedience, 50-67 ; their violation of
the vow of chastity, 67-71; their
wholesale breach of the vow of
poverty, 71-104; their arrogance, 105-
23; the Imago and its contents,
112-22; every Jesuit goes to heaven,
121; relation of the Order to women,
123-32; activity of Jesuits in politics,
133-98; their political ability vastly
overrated, 136 and note; responsible
for the fall of the Stuarts, 155, 157;
Thirty Years’ War partly financed
by German Jesuits, 161; support
Boulanger's designs on France, 164-5;
Jesuits only allowed to know the
“ official " history of their Order,
224-6; barrenness of Jesuit scholar-
ship, 228; literary censorship estab-
lished by, 264-6; their attitude to
learning and research, 270-85; their
inevitable literary barrenness, 275-6;
popular delusion regarding the, 278;
their morality, 286-337 ; the doctrine
that “ the end sanctifies the means,”
320-7; their teaching as to tyranni-
cide, 327-37; their teaching as to the
subordination of the State to the
Church, 338-68; on the impossibility
of religious equality, 349-54; on the
capital punishment of heretics, 354-7 ;
account of the common daily life
within the Order, 376-80; review of
the success and failure of the Order,
423-46; price at which the Order
saved the Papacy, 428-9; political
activity of the Order its undoing,
429; their counter-reformation, 430;
their attitude to the Papacy, 431;
their lust of power, ib.; their suc-
cesses and failures, 431-2: they make
machines not men, 432-4; secret of
their strength, 435; their danger
to religion and the State, 436-41;
their hostility to State schools, 439-
40; under the cloak of religion, 442;
their subterranean methods of work-
ing, 443; their falsified history, 444;
the fascination of the Order, ib.;
essentially anti-Christian character
of the Order, 446; the driving force
of Ultramontanism, 466

Jewish disabilities, removal of, and the
Jesuits, ii. 352

Joanna ab Alexandro beholds Jesus as
in a vision, i. 340, ii. 110

Index 4 8 3

John III. of Sweden and Jesuit influ-
ence, ii. 138, 139

John IV. of Portugal attains the throne
through Jesuit support, ii. 162
Joller, Father, the author’s confessor at
Feldkirch, i. 202; his detestable
character, 202, 204

Joseph, King of Portugal, attempted
murder of, at Jesuit instigation, ii.
336

Joseph II.. Emperor, on the Jesuits, ii.
85

Jouvancy, Father Joseph de, and the
study of the mother tongue, i. 113
Julius ill.. Pope, issues the hull Ex-
poscit debitum, i. 413; confirms the
Formula Instituti, ii. 3-4
Jungmanu as an authority on aesthetics,

i. 124

Kant, Jesuit boycott of, ii. 251; the
author’s first acquaintance with the
real teaching of, 405-6
Katholischer Missionen, Die, head-
quarters of, at Exaeten, ii. 369, 370
Kelle, Professor Johann, on Alvarez’s
“ Latin Grammar,” i. 69 (note);
states there is no great German
classic in the Jesuit College at
Prague, 114; discoveries of, in the
archives of the Vienna Library, 184
et seqq .; accuses the Jesuits of at-
tempting to do away with incrimin-
ating documents in public libraries,
189; quotes Viennese MS. as to blind
obedience, 338; opposed by Ebner,

ii. 252

Kempis, Thomas a, his “ Imitation of
Christ ” must be read by all novices.

i. 313, 318

Kerr, Father, Under-Prefect at Stony-
hurst, i. 241

Ketteler, Baron Otto von, death of, ii.
400

Ketteler, Baron Wilhelm Emanuel von,
advice of, to the author on the
subject of his entering the Jesuit
Order, i. 217-8; his remarkable per-
sonality, 220-5; leader of the Minority
party at the Vatican Council, 220;
author’s mother’s quarrel with, 222;
his submission to the Vatican Coun-
cil. 223-4; his extraordinary credu-
lity, 224; his death, 225; on the
question whether Jesuit3 can be
compelled to sin, 335-6
Kevelaer, the Madonna’s shrine at,i.5;
description of the scenes of pil-
grimage, 30 ; the exorcism at the
feast of St. Blasius at, 31-2; the
ceremony of the cross of ashes at,
32; the author’s fruitless appeal to,
252-3

Kiel, the author migrates to, ii. 461
Kink shows why Jesuit teaching can
never be national, ii. 32; his opinion
of van Swieten, 43; his account of
Jesuit arrogance towards other
Orders, 44-5; expounds the evils of
scholasticism, 278-9

Kladderadatsch on Jesuit greed and
acquisitiveness, i. 248
Kleutgen, Joseph, ii. 255
Kluckhohn, August, account of the daily
routino at a Jesuit school by. i.
181-4; on Jesuit unchastity, 207,

ii. 69

Kneller, Father, on the death of his
mother when he was a novice, i.
401

Knorr, Admiral von, ii. 465 (note)

Knox, Thomas Francis, his “ Records of
English Catholics,” ii. 149
KQller, von, advises the author to reside
in Kiel, ii. 460-1

Kolnische Blatter (now Volkszeitung),
i. 6, ii. 340 {note)

Kdniggratz, Jesuit lies after the battle
of, i. 213; misrepresentation con-
cerning, 233

Kopp, Cardinal, on Marian Congrega-
tions, i. 172; his goodwill to be con-
ciliated. ii. 399; his alleged anti-
Jesuitism, 400; appointed Cardinal,
403

Korfl - Schmising - Kerssenbrock, Count
Franz Xavier, marriage of, to the
author’s sister Antonia, i. 252
Korum, Dr., Bishop of Treves, ii. 375
Kostka, Stanislaus, an undesirably
“angelic” boy, i. 203; festival of,
285; au example to the young, ii.
Ill

Kreutzer, Joseph, dismissal of, ii. 397 ;

driven to suicide, 398
Kreuzzeitung, burning of the, i. 7; the
author’s first articles in, ii. 449
Krones on real aim of Jesuit activity
in Hungary in 1655, ii. 145-6
Kropf, Francis Xavier, supports Latin
against German, i. 112
Kiibeck, Baron von, i. 17
Kullmann attempts the life of Bismarck,

i. 212

Kulturkampf, incident in the, i. 8; feel-
ing aroused by the, 16; outbreak
of. 244; the fundamental blunder of,
255-6; Leo XIII. brings the, to a
close, ii. 67; unfortunate effects of,
464-5; the only possible form of,
465

“ L*s,” three, that deserved hanging,

ii. 183

La Chaise, Father, denounced by Fene-
lon, ii. 183-4; Madame de Maintenon
on, 185-6; on the power of the
Jesuits, 191; his country house, 193;
the cemetery of Pere La Chaise, ib.;
shows how the Jesuits may run with
the hare and hunt with the hounds,
313-4

Lacroix, a Jesuit casuist, ii. 287
Lallemand. author of the Douai for-
geries, ii. 315, 316

Lallemant, Father, on lay members
of the Jesuit Order in Canada, ii.
19

Lamormaini, Father, Rector of the
Jesuit College at Graz, Confessor to
Ferdinand II., ii. 159; procures the
election of Ferdinand III., 179; his
share in Wallenstein’s fate, 179-80;
frequent interference of, in Austrian
politics, 180-2; his tyranny over
Ferdinand II., 182; how to produce
an erroneous impression of. 283
Landrat, post of, promised to the
author, ii. 460; the post had become
“ impossible,” 462

Lang, Karl Heinrich von, inquires into
the charge of immorality among
Jesuits, i. 206-7; examples of vicious
practices cited by, ii. 68-9

Index

484

Langen, Professor, decree of excom-
munication against, i. 244
Lapidatio, a system of fault-finding in
the novitiate, i. 355

La Balette, the miraculous spring at.
i. 28-9

LassauU, Amalie von, a nun who re-
fused to subscribe the dogma of
infallibility, i. 245

Lateran, the author climbs the Scala
Santa at the Church of St. John of,
i. 268

Lateran Council, Decree of, as to con-
fession, i. 34

Latin, Jesuits aud the study of, i. 96-114;
dog- Latin of the Jesuit scholastics,
98; novice’s Latiu more barbarous
still, 99-100; the Latin of the Order
condemned by Oliva, 100-1; Latin
always used for ceremonial purposes,
106; imperfectly taught by Jesuits,
193; use of Latin compulsory in
lectures and disputations, ii. 230,
261-2

Latin grammar as taught by Jesuits,

i. 68-70

Laurentius on the supremacy of Church
over State, ii. 344; on the death
sentence for heretics, 356; his hos-
tility to State schools, 439
Lavalette, a Jesuit trader, ii. 92-3
Lawsuits touching Jesuit misappro-
priation of money : the De Buck
process at Brussels, ii. 99-100; the
Hartmann process at Straubiug,
100-2

Layman in the Catholic Church, status
of, i. 272; demeanour enjoined as
lay Jesuits, 358; the custom of keep-
ing the lay brother in ignorance,

ii. 388-9

Laymaun favours permissible ambigui-
ties, ii. 305-7

Laynez, Father Jacob (James), ascribes
the authorship of the Exercises to
God and the Virgin, i. 370; advised
to adopt the practice of insinuation,
ii. 82; as a theologian, ill
Lazarist Missionary Congregation, ii. 55;
founded by St. Vincent de Paul, 57
(note)

Leaders in Jesuit schools, duties of, 1.
144

Le Bret’s Magazine of Church and poli-
tical history and law, ii. 196 (note);
on Jesuit doings in Scio, 364
Ledochowski, Cardinal, receives the
author at Koine, i. 262
Lehmkuhl’s Theologia moralis, ii 248*
his view of the Creation, 282; ‘justi-
fies the use of mental reservation,
307-8; adviser of the German Centre
Party, 344; on the non-ohservance of
civil oaths 345-6; when civil law's
may be disregarded, 346-9; condemns
religious toleration, 351-2; his per-
sonal character, 368

Leibnitz (Leibniz), Godfrey William,
Baron, on the dangers of Jesuit
activity in politics, ii. 196; on Jesuit
morality, 294; on the Douai for-
geries, 315-6

Leo XII., Pope, detested by the Jesuit
Order, ii. 373-4, 374 (note)

Leo XIII., Pope, sanctions the Lourdes
pilgrimages, i. 258; intercedes for
the restoration of the author’s sister

Marie, 268; canonises Johannes Bech-
manna, 309; provokes the hostility
of the Jesuits, ii. 66; effects au end
to the Kulturkampf, 67; his mani-
festoes against modern research and
learning, 270, 271; on the supremacy
of Church over State, 338
Leon, John, i. 164

Le Itoux on the deathbed repentance
of the wicked, ii. 300-1
Lessing, L. von Hammerstein’s apprecia-
tion of, ii. 232-3
Lihellus exercitiorum, i. 380
Liberalism of thought and research,
Jesuit attitude to, ii. 270-85
Libraries at Jesuit schools, character
of, i. 152-3

Lieber, Leader of the German Centre, in
consultation with the Jesuits, ii. 16o;
character of, 402; his annoyance at
the Kaiser’s interview with the
author, 459; attacks the author, 460
Libge, the schools of the “ Brothers of
the Common Life” at, i. 63; the un-
just judge and the witch at, ii,
302, 303

Liguieres, De, Father, how he confessed
Louis XV., ii. 192

Ligny, Professor, entrapped into a sham
correspondence at Douai, ii. 315
Liguori, Alfonso Maria di, canonised by
Gregory XVI., ii. 286; his teaching
implicitly accepted, 287; on calum-
niation. 308; 011 adultery, 309
Link, Father, the author’s confessor at
Feldkirch, i. 202; nobility of his
character, 208-10; his sympathy with
boys, 209; on the question of school-
boy friendship, 210; counsels the
author when efforts are being made
to induce him to enter the Jesuit
Order, 217

" Little Table,” penalty of the, i. 203
Liverpool, terrible social conditions of,
ii. 413

Lo£, Baron Felix von, intensity of his
dislike of Protestant Prussia, i. 212;
a surprise visit to Blyenbeck, ii.
76

Loe, Matilda. Baroness von. (See Hoens-
broech, Matilda, Marchioness of)

Loe, Max, Count von, on priestly pride,
i. 24 ; quarrels with his sister about
Prince Bismarck, 212
LoS. Walther, Baron von, Field-Marshal,
resides at Bonn, i. 245; connives at
the disqualification of the author
for military service, 253-4 ; regrets
the author’s entrance into the Jesuit
Order, 405; change of his views in
old age, 406; opinion of Longridge’s
gun, ii. 218

L6f3er, Father, eulogises the Marian
Congregations, i. 166; claims Jesuit
direction for them, 167-8; describes
their foes, 176; extols the fruits of
their piety, 178; arrogance of his
praise, 180

Lohmann, Father, as an art critic, ii.
397; harshness of, towards Kreutzer,
398

Longridge, Cecil, and his new gun, ii.
218

Louis XIII., Jesuits and, ii. 183
Louis XVI. and Father La Chaise, ii.
183-4; his fear of the Jesuits, 191-2;
hie present to Father La Chaise, 193

Index

485

Loai3 XV., how he was confessed by
Father de Lignieres, ii. 192
Lourdes, the author undertakes a jour-
ney to. i. 253, 257; the miracle at,
258; the wonder-working spring at,
ib.; revenue derived from the pil-
grimages to, ib. (note;, intoxication
of the “ atmosphere " at, 258-9
Love, Jesuit degradation of, ii. 289
Loyola, Ignatius, putative enlighten-
ment of, i. 76; denunciation enjoined
by, 140 originated Spiritual Exer-
cises, 162; examples of his hysterical
mysticism, 299-502; on the virtue of
obedience, 322-30; the non-morality
of his commands exposed, 330-6;
author of the Exercises at the dic-
tation of the Virgin and God, 370;
how the composition was actually
suggested to him, 371; original in-
tention of, in writing the Exercises.
379; founder of the Society of Jesus,
407; author of the Constitutions,
ib.; recognises alhliates, ii. 16-17;
canonisation of, 21-2, 111 ; founder
of the Inquisition, 23; advises how
the Order may acquire wealth, 82;
enjoins intercourse ouly with women
of very high rank, 127; rebutts
Elisabeth Koaer, 129; his considera-
tion for the Duchess of Farnese,
ib.; appoints confessors to sover-
eigns, 169; the incarnation of pru-
dence and calculation, 424-5
Luca, De, on capital punishment for
heretics, ii. 355

Ludger, St., the civilisation of, ii.
439

Lugo favours the use of ambiguity, ii.
305

Lukanus thwarts the Kaiser’s wishes, ii.
460; Waldersee’s attempt to check-
mate, 461; the author declines the
proposals of, 462
Lumina, character of, i. 297-8
L’UnioeTS, i. 6; supports Papal infalli-
bility, 222

Luther, that “horrible monster," ii. 21;
his “blasphemous tongue," 22; the
“Epicurean swine," 24; scurrilous
account of, 358-63; Luther’s suicide!
360 and note; views on polygamy,
362

Lutheranism, an object of Jesuit hos-
tility, ii. 21-4

“ Lutherisch,” Jesuit pronunciation of
the word, ii. 29-30
Lying made easy, ii. 302-3

Macao, death of Cardinal-Legate Tour-
non at, ii. 54; Bishop of, excommuni-
cated, 59; the Jesuit church and
seminary at, ib.

Macaulay, Lprd, his criticism of Edward
Petre, ii. 153; on the versatility of
Jesuits, 197

MacMahon, Marshal, i. 232
Magdeburg, Jesuit greed at, ii. 98
Maggio, Father, confessor of Rudolf II.,
ii. 178

Magister meals of Jesuits, ii. 75-7
Magistri, Jesuit fathers who had charge
of the lessons at Feljlkircli, i. 57;
no prospects for, 85; their loathing
of teaching, 86

Maigrot, Bishop, banished at the insti-
gation of the Jesuits, ii. 59; decrees

against, issued by the Emperor of
(Jniua, 64

Maintenon, Madame de. on the activi-
ties of Father La Chaise, ii. 185-6
Mairhofer, M., Rector of the Jesuit col-
lege at Munich, ii. 143
Malagrida advises the murder of King
Joseph of Portugal, ii. 336
Malta, apparitions of the Madonna at
the Jesuit college at, i. 32o
Malvasia, Monsiguore, on the attempt to
restore by force Catholicism in Scot-
land, ii. 148-9

Hamachi’s theory of crime, ii. 366
Manaraus, Oliverius, approves Delrio’s
work in favour of uutruthfulness,
ii. 303

Manchester, terrible social conditions
of, ii. 413

Manning, Cardinal-Archbishop, author’s
interview with, i. 239; hostility to
Jesuits, 239-40; on Jesuit mischief-
making in politics, ii. 163-4; calum-
niated by the Jesuits, 299
Manresa, Loyola’s stay at, i. 371
Mansonius, Father Ludovicus, relates an
apparition of Jesus sanctioning
blind obedience, i. 340; the same ap-
parition also requires all to love his
society, ii. 110

Manuductor, the duties of, i. 271, 393
Marechal, disclosures of, as to the in-
fluence of the Jesuits over Louis
XIV., ii. 191-2

Marellus, Jacobus, the loves of, i. 206,
ii. 68

Maria-Laach, i. 230

Maria Theresa, Empress, intervenes on
behalf 0 / German in the Jesuit
schools, i. 114; supports Gerhard
van Swieten against the Jesuits, ii.
43 and note ; betrayal by the Jesuits
of her confession, 174-6; her scruples
as to the partition of Poland, 176;
her opinion of Jesuit learning, 279-80
Marian Congregations considered, i.
163-80; signilicance of, 164; the
founders of, ib.; controlled by the
Jesuits, 165-72; pliability of, 166; aim
of, 168; tercentenary of, 170; ad-
ministration of, 174; power of the
president, 175; vow taken by all
congreganists, ib.; alleged educa-
tional purpose of, 177; supervision
effect-ed b y.ib.; doubtful value of, 179;
extravagant claims on behalf of. 180
Mariana, Juan, on Jesuit neglect of
Latin, i. 103; applauds the murder
of Henry III. of France, ii. 144; his
De Rege et Regis Institutione, 327:
the book licensed by the Society of
Jesus, 328; Mariana's teaching as to
the killing of tyrants and princes
328-31; the Mayence reprint of his
book, 332; book burned at the order
of the Sorboune, 333
Marks, reading out of. at Jesuit schools,
mischief of, i. 144-5

Marpingen, the alleged apparition of
the Virgin at, i. 266-7
Marriage, the simple vows of scholas-
tics and spiritual and temporal co-
adjutors in the Society of Jesus, an
impediment to, i. 273, 417; Jesuit
degradation of, ii. 289
Marseilles. Jesuit trading scandal in,
ii. 92-3

Index

486

Martin, Dr., escapes from Wesel, i. 257
Martin, Joseph, on the Marian Congre-
gations, i. 170-1

Martin, Luiz, and the control of the
Marian Congregations, i. 172; mental
reservation of his statements, 173
Martinique, Jesuit trading in. ii. 92-3
Marxheim, i. 249

Mary, Mouth of, i. 161; Flowers of, ib.
(See Virgin)

Mary Queen of Scots, ii. 149-53
Mass, character of tlie ceremony of the,
i. 22; midnight Mass on Christmas
Eve at Feldkirch, 201-2
Mass-game, i. 22-3

Matthieu, Jesuit, chief promoter of the
League of the Guises, ii. 144; in-
volved in Parsons’ plot against
Queen Elizabeth, 150
May Laws, Jesuit casuistry respecting,
i. 264

May meditations in Jesuit education, i.
161

Mayence, the Gymnasium teaching at,

i. 118; the Gymnasium at, 220; von
Ketteler, Bishop of, and his charac-
ter, 220-5; the " trinity ” of, 221; von
Doss, Superior of the Jesuit settle-
ment at, and his influence, 225-9;
Heinrich Bone, Director of the Gym-
nasium, 229-30. excitement at, during
the Franco-German War, 232; the
National Union for Catholic Ger-
many founded at, ii. 375

Meals, daily, of the Jesuits, ii. 75;
“ magister ” meals, 75-7; duplicia
feasts, 75 (note)

Mecklenburg, Friedrich Franz III.,
Grand Duke of, i. 244
Meditations of the Exercises, i. 375-6
Mein Austritt ans dem Jesuitenorden ,

ii. 449

Mejer, Otto, lectures of, at GCttingen,

i. 122

Melchers, Archbishop, arrest and im-
prisonment of, i. 257
M6moires de la Congregation de la
Mission, official character of. ii. 55,
57; charges against, 56; its state-
ments in the matter of the Legation
and death of Cardinal Tournon un-
assailable, 58; some of the docu-
ments it published. 59-65
Memorie Storiche dell ’ Eminentissimo
Monsignore Cardinale di Tournon ,

ii. 54 et seqq.

Mendoza, Cardinal, on Jesuit political
activity against England, ii. 150-1
Mendoza, Hernando de, on the evil of
reserved cases of sin, i. 364-5; de-
nounced by Jesuits, 364 (note)
Menstruae Disputationes , ii. 248-9
Mental reservation, uses of, i. 173, 174;
Cardinal Franzelin on. 264-5; Jesuit
justifications of, ii. 304-5, 306, 307-8
Mercurian, General of the Jesuit Society,
on matters outside of pastoral func-
tions, ii. 137-8

Meschler. Father, on the uncertainty of
the Jesuit's calling and location, i.
88; becomes confessor of the author’s
mother, 234 (note); guarantees the
authenticity of the apparition of the
Madonna at Marpingen, 266; ap-
plauds the extravagances at lourdes,
tb.,- examines the author before his
admission into the Jesuit Order, 282;

ascetic practices encouraged by, 389-
90; travels in comfort, ii. 132
Meulen, Fraulein von, her influence on
the author, i. 25; her faith in gross
supernaturalism, 26 et seqq.
Mezzafalce, Papal Legate to China, per-
secuted by the Jesuits, ii. 58; ban-
ished through their means, 59
Migazzi, Cardinal, on Jesuit flouting of
the Pope, ii. 52

Miller, Father, approves of the author’s
progress, ii. 215; experiences an em-
barrassment, 225

Minoux. Father, Hector at Feldkirch, i.
197

Miquel and the author’s interview with
the Kaiser, ii. 460; his “collective
policy,” 465
Miracle “ cures,” i. 13
Miranda, on the difficulty of learning
all about the Society, ii. 6
Missions of the Jesuit Order, i. 416; in-
stances of the missionary spirit, ii.
382-3

Missions, popular, exercises for the
masses, i. 384; excitement during the
continuance of, ii. 380-1; instances of
the organisation of, 383-4; carried
on in Germany, 384

Modernism, Jesuit denunciation of, ii.
271-4

Modesty, false, and its hane, i. 40-2
Mohler, Professor Johann Adam, on
Jesuit morality, ii. 293-4
Molinism, the doctrine of, ii. 187; a
synonym for Jesuitism, 290
Mommsen asserts that Jesuits attempt
to do away with incriminating docu-
ments in public libraries, i. 189
Monita privata Societatis Jesu, ii. 7; the
question of its genuineness, 7-9;
examples of the Secret Instructions,
10-13

Monod, Father, his influence in France,
ii. 189

Monsperger, Professor, confessions of
eminent persons discovered by, ii. 177
Monte, Cardinal, avows Jesuit opposi-
tion to Lutheranism, ii. 22
Montezon on the moral teaching of the
Jesuits, ii. 287

Montserrat, Benedictine Convent at, L
370

Monumenta Germaniae paedagogica , i.
63 (note) ; purpose with which it was
compiled, 184; spirit in which the
compilers did their work, 191 (note)
Moral theology, a variant of the con-
fessional, ii. 286; irretrievably
damaged by the Jesuits, 289, 293;
Dollinger and Reuseh's great work
on the “ Moral-Theological Dis-
putes ” in the Catholic Church, 396-7
Morality, Jesuit, ii. 286-337; unwhole-
someness of Jesuit teaching regard-
ing, 327; and the State, 338-68; ap-
plication of, 363-8
Moretus, Balthasar, ii. 112
Miiffendorf, exorcising a ghost at, i. 27-8
Miinchen-Gladbach, the author commis-
sioned to help the pastor of a parish
near, ii. 420-21

Munich, Jesuit documents lodged in the
library at, i. 189; revelations of the
secret Jesuit documents, 206, 207;
documents in, concerning the Jesuits
and miracles, 312; and about the

Index

487

Jesuits and witchcraft, 320; memo-
rial of the Jesuit College at, touch-
ing blind obedience, 338; evidence at,
of the use of secret reports by Jesuit
officials, 353; MS. of the Monita at,
ii. 9; luxury of the Jesuit College at,
81; endowment of the Jesuit College
in, 83-4

Munster, political activity of the Jesuits
of, ii. 160

Music, sensuousness of, affected by
Jesuits, i. 160

Mysteries of the Exercises, i. 376
Mysticism, false, warmly approved by
the Jesuits, i. 29S et seqq.; true,
strongly antipathetic to them, 299

Namur, Jesuit activity at. in 1692, ii.
162

Natalis, Father, on permissible subjects
of talk among Jesuit novices, i. 292-3
National Union for Catholic Germany,
ii. 375

Nationality, sense of, obliterated under
the Jesuit education, i. 131-3; de-
struction of, required by the Jesuit
spirit of cosmopolitanism, ii. 34-8
Naumann, Dr. Friedrich, his error re-
specting Thomas Aquinas, ii. 256
(note)

Newnham Paddox, i. 242
Nicasius Grammaticus on the barbarous
Latinity of Spanish Jesuits, i. 103
Nickel, Goswin, General, supports Jesuit
activity in Hungary in 1655, ii. 145;
one of the two German Generals of
the Order, 145 (note); his ordinance
touching the confessing of sove-
reigns, 173

Nickes, compositions by, i. 160
Nidhard, Eberhard. ii. 158
Niemoller, deathbed confession of, ii.
318

Nimeguen, Peace of, ii. 42
Nix, Hermann, takes the Wynandsrade
scholastics to view the relics at
Aix-la-Chapelle, i. 323; receives the
author as a member of the Jesuit
Order, 407; involved in the Hart-
mann trial, ii. 100-2; character of,
201; the author’s indebtedness to,
202; Nix’s reverence for the Virgin,
208; his eulogy of the Jesuit Order,
213-4

Noailles, Cardinal-Archbishop of Paris,
and the Jesuits, ii. 192
Noris, H., Cardinal, and Probabilism, ii.
297

Novenae, value of, i. 306-7 ; " novena of
grace ” in honour of St. Francis
Xavier, 323

Novice Master, duties of, i. 271, 284,
285, 286. 287, 290, 291, 297, 298, 318,
355, 393

Novitiate, ignorance during, i. 99;
novice’s Latin, 99-100; the novice’s
garb, 284, 285; the novice’s patron
saint, 285-6; daily routine of, 286-7;
hardship and discomfort of life at
Exaeten, 288-9; fare of novices, 289;
recreations of, 290; oratory, practice
of, during, 291; seclusion during,
292-4; permissible subjects of conver-
sation during, 292-3; meditation im-
perative, 297; object of the Lumina,
297-8; tale-bearing and fault-finding
encouraged, 355-6; the novice’s all-

seeing eye, 357; deadly monotony
of life of, 358-61; full course of
the Exercises during, 371; manual
work duriug, 392-3; modes <pf self-
humiliation during, 394; penitential
practices in, 394-5; the cruelty of
renunciation of parents in, 398-402;
expulsion from, 403

Noyelle, Charles de, Jesuit General, on
illiterate teachers, i. 186
Noyers, Louis XIII. 's secretary, a lay
member of the Jesuit Society, ii. 19
Nun, the confessions of a, i. 260; Jesuits
forbidden to undertake the regular
cure of nuns, ii. 124; avoidance of
nuns, though enjoined, only osten-
sible, 131; a nunuery more comfort-
able than a convent, 132; Jesuits
supposed to exist for men, not
women, ib.; really women and nuns
exist for Jesuits, ib.

Nursing Orders, self-sacrifice of the, ii.
exist for Jesuits, ib.

Oaths, Jesuit attitude to non-observance
of civil, ii. 345-6; when oath of alle-
giance may be ignored, 437-8 (note)
Obedience, the first law' of Jesuits, i.
88; the vow of, 273; the dominant
note in Jesuit ascetic discipline, 326
ct seqq,; the three degrees of, 328;
Jesuit obedience absolutely non-
moral, 330-6; as enjoined by Jesus,
333-4; how the Jesuit doctrine com-
pels to sin, 335-6; Jesuit defence of
the doctrine of, 336; testimony of
history to breach of the vow, ii.
50-67

Observator, duties of, i. 138-9
Old Catholics, Jesuit attitude towards,
i. 244-5 . _

Oldenburg, Grand Duke of, i. 244
Oliva, Paul, on poor quality of Jesuit
Latin, i. 100, 101; condones breach
of the “ Statement of Conscience,”
346; condemns Gonzalez's work on
Probabilism, ii. 50; disobeys the
Papal injunction, 51
Omnia ad major era Dei gloriam, motto
of the Jesuit Order, i. 365, ii. 106
Oneken, Hermann, his Rudolf von Ben -
nigsen, ii. 344 (note)

Oosen, the Jesuit villa at, ii. 77; equi-
vocation associated with its pur-
chase, 319

Oppelt, Johannes, an approved German
classic in Jesuit eyes, i. 110 (note)
Orders in the Catholic Church, status
of monastic, i. 272; essentials of an
Order, 273; wealth of the French
Orders, 274 (note); artificial basis of,
276-7 ; why they are filled, 278 ; the
disillusionment, 279; the steps of
membership of an Order, 280 et seqq. ;
the impediments to membership,
280-1; the garb of the Jesuit Order,
284-5; exaggerated opinions of the
perfection of the members of various
Orders, ii. 377-8; the common life
within the Jesuit Order, 376 80;
heroism of the nursing Orders, 378
(note), most Orders free from the
gross defects of the Jesuit Order,
424

Ordinations, the four minor, ii. 215
Ordrupshoj, Denmark, Jesuit school at,
i. 53; the benefactress of, ii. 167;

Index

488

“ harmless ” place for men of
thought, 268

Original sin, doctrine of, ii. 224
Orlandinus on the authorship of the
Constitutions, i. 408
Oswald, Augustine, ii. 413

Pachtler, Georg Michael, defends the
Jesuit system of education, i. 63
(note); attacks freemasonry, 64
(note); one of the only two profes-
sional teachers at Feldkirch, 72;
approves a crystallised scheme of
education, 83; tries to veil the
selfishness of Jesuit education, 84;
admits the centralisation of the
Jesuit Order, 92; his lack of the
historic conscience, 191; examined
the author before his admission to
the Order, 282; attacks Leo XIII.,
ii. 67

Paderborn, MS. copy of the Monita at,
ii. 9, 10

Palafox, Don Juan de, Bishop of Los
Angeles, protest of, against the secret
statutes of the Jesuits, ii. 6-7 ; perse-
cuted by the Jesuits, 6; calumniated
by the Jesuits, 86-7 (note); proposed
beatification of, ib.

Palestrina, Masses by, in Jesuit worship,
i. 160

Palmieri, Domenico, in conflict with the
censorship, ii. 269; on the use of
equivocation, 307

Papacy, the character of, ii. 392; a
purely human institution, 406. (See
Pope)

Papal States, independence of, ii. 166;
attempt to galvanise the question,
391-2. (See Pope)

Paris, the author’s sojourn at, ii. 421
Parsons, Father Robert, engaged in
Jesuit activity in England, ii. 46, 111;
his plot against Queen Elizaheth,
149-53; his many pseudonyms, 151
(note); his political ^pamphlets, 151,
152; and the deposition of Queen
Elizabeth, 312; ohject of hi3 hook
against the succession of the King
of Scotland, 313-4; on the repudiation
of the oath of allegiance, 437-8

(note)

Passau, endowment of the Jesuit College
at, ii. 84

Passionei, Cardinal, author of the

Memorie storiche Tournon, ii. 56;

annotates the Jesuit memorial to
Innocent XIII., 60-1 (note)

Passow’s Lexicon, uses of, i. 123-4
Patriotism, Christian view of, ii. 34;

what the Jesuits put in its place,
35; essential characteristics of real,
35-6; “two-faced” patriotism, 37
Paul III., Pope, issues the Bull found-
ing the Society of Jesus, i. 407,
413

Paul V., Pope, canonises Loyola, ii. Ill;

at war with Venice, 364
Paul the Hermit, the questions asked
by, i. 293

Paulsen, Friedrich, lectures on Modern
Philosophy at Berlin University, ii.
404

Peking, usurious practices of the Jesuits
in, ii. 83, 89

Pemble. Father, on the undergarment
and seamless cloak of Jesus and the

wood of the Cross, i. 304-5; his
booklet about the Virgin, ii. 207
Penitential practices in the novitiate, i.
394-5

Pere La Chaise cemetery, ii. 193
Pereyra, Thomas, Superior of the Por-
tuguese Jesuits, and Cardinal Tour-
non, ii. 60 et seqq.

Perfection, counsel of, i. 273-6
Pergen, Count, memorial to the Empress
Maria Theresa on the imperfect
study of German in the Jesuit curri-
culum, i. 114; deplores the neglect
of poor scholars, 146-7; animadverts
on the deficiences of Jesuit educa-
tion, 194-5

Perjury, Jesuit notion of, ii. 305-6
Pesch, Tilmann, gives way to jealousy
and abuse, ii. 131-2; how he enjoys
the appearance of scholarship, 277;
his “Christ oder Anti-Christ,” 357;
defames Protestantism and slandera
Luther, 358-63; favours an extremist
policy against non-Catholic Chris-
tians, 375; is refused the author's
collaboration, 394-5

Petre, Edward, the evil counsellor of
James II., ii. 153-5; attitude of the
Jesuit Order towards, 155-8
Petri, Dr., and Jesuit designs against
the Hohenzollerns, ii. 384-5
Pfeil, Aloysius, on the effective conver-
sion of the heathen, ii. 382-3
Pfiilf, Father, and A. von Doss's lecture
and article on German classics, i.
227, 228

Philip II. of Spain implicated in Par-
sons' plot against Queen Elizabeth,
ii. 149-53

Philip V. of Spain, violation of a con-
fession of, by his confessor, ii. 178;
the victim of Jesuit intrigues.
189

Philosophy in the Jesuit sense, ii. 246;
the course of the study of, in the
scholasticate, 246-7 ; what is compre-
hended by, 247-8; Aristotle supreme
in, 250-3

Piaget on the Jesuit Order, ii. 425 and
note

Piccolomini, General, and the study of
Aristotle, ii. 252-3

Piety, in Jesuit education, various
phases of, i. 158-63; of the Jesuit
Order, 295 ct seqq.; objects of the
Lumina, 297-8 ; battens on mawkish
mysticism, 299 et seqq.; disregard of
the Scriptures as a means of edifica-
tion, 318; the sole use of the New
Testament in, ib.; belief in devils
and witchcraft a feature of, 319-23;
the part played by relics in, 324-5
Pilgrimages, wickedness and degradation
of, ii. 212

Pingsmann, Dr., on the return of the
Jesuits to Germany, ii. 47
Pius V., Pope, excommunication of
Queen Elizaheth by, ii. 311
Pius VII., Pope, restores the Jesuit
Order, ii. 135

Pius IX., Pope, overcome by the secrets
at La Salette, i. 28 : alleged hopes
respecting France, 238; sanctions the
Lourdes pilgrimages, 258; unattrac-
tive personality of. 262; his cast-off
clothes as relics, 263; his manifestoes
anent modern research and learning,

Index

489

ii. 270, 271; on the supremacy of
Church over State. 339
Pius X-, Pope, enjoins absolute docility,

i. 51; sanctions the Lourdes pil-
grimages, 258; his syllabus against
Modernism, ii. 270; on the supremacy
of Church over State, 338

Plantin Press produces the Imago , ii.
112-3

Plautus as a theologian, 1. 102
Poland, Jesuit political intrigues in, ii.
138, 139; the candidature for the
throne of, 146-8; Maria Theresa and
the partition of, 176
Politics and the Jesuit Order, ii. 133-98;
Jesuit political ability greatly over-
rated, 136 and note; the “con-
science " formula in, 170-1 ; Hoffaus
on the evils of Jesuit interference
in temporal affairs, 193-4
Pombal, Marquis of, his scheme to unite
Portugal to England thwarted by
the Jesuits, ii. 163
Pondicherry, Jesuit trading at, ii. 91
Pontah (Spanmiiller), Jacob, on the
abuses in the Jesuit system of in-
struction, i. 189-91

Ponte, Father Louis de, on the author-
ship of the Exercises, i. 370
Pope, the, relations of the Society of
Jesus to, i. 412; the Jesuits claim to
be the bodyguard of, ii. 50; Jesuit
resistance, active or passive, to, 51,
52, 53, 53-66, 66-7; on the supreme
power of the Pope in civil matters,
339; is the Pope the Vicar of Christ?
392; the price the Pope has had to
pay for Jesuit support, 428; the
“ direct ” power of the Pope, no
longer tenable, replaced by the “ in-
direct,” 428. (See Papal, Papacy)
Porquet, Father, on the Chinese rites
adopted by the Jesuits, ii. 64;
excommunicated by the Cardinal
Legate Tournon, »b.

Porsch, Dr., and the author’s Church
and State pamphlet, ii. 393
Portico, the residence for theology
students at, i. 287 ; the author enters,

ii. 411; his experiences at. 413-4
Portugal, political activity of the Jesuits

in, ii. 162-3

Possevin, Anton, Jesuit political agent
at Stockholm, ii. 138; receives John
III. into the Catholic Church, ib.;
intervenes in the affairs of Poland,
139

Postulancy, the stage preceding the
novitiate, i. 228; the period of pro-
bation, 280; the preliminary exam-
ination for, 280-2

Pottgeisser, Julius, General Prefect at
Feldkirch, i. 145; introduces the game
of “running the gauntlet,” 156-7; a
narrow-minded martinet. 210
Poverty, the Jesuit attitude to, i. 147-8:
the vow of, 273; the counsel of
poverty examined, 273-5; scope of the
vow of, ii. 71-4; habitual disregard
of, 74-104

Praetor, duties of. i. 138-41
Prague, the Jesuit College at, contained
no German classic in 1772, i. 114;
MS. of the Monita at, ii. 9; Jesuits
secure the control of the University
of, 52-3; Jesuits and the Carolinian
Academy at, 110

Prantl, his account of Jesuit intrigues
in the Ludwig-Maximilian University
at Ingolstadt, ii. 38-40
Prat on the dealings of the Jesuits and
the French League, ii. 161-2; on
Father Cotou’s interference in French
politics, 183

Pray’s, Father, calumnious work on the
Chinese Missions, ii. 66 (note)
Prayer, the chief function of true re-
ligion, ii. 455, 457

Predestination, Jesuit view of, i. 251;
security of salvation and probability
of damnation, 403-5

Prefects, Jesuit Fathers who super-
intended pupils at Feldkirch, i. 57;
no prospects for, 85; prefects of the
novices at Exaeten, 290
Prelection, i. 94

Preludes of the Exercises, i. 373
Premonstrants, Jesuit opposition to, at
Magdeburg, ii. 98

Preussische Jahrbiicher, the author’s
articles in the, ii. 449
Pride of the Society of Jesus, ii. 105-
23

Priest in the Catholic Church, status of,
i. 272; his part in the Mass, ii.
219-21 ; course of studies and dis-
cipline necessary for, i. 271-390, ii.
227-69

Priests, German Catholic, i. 23-4
Princes' confessors, influence in politics
of, ii. 135; the salaries of, 193
Privatdozent. the post of, ii. 463
Probabilism, the Pope’s order respecting
works on, ii. 50-1; the mischief of,
293

Procuratorial Congregation of the
Society of Jesus, i. 424
Procurator, status of, in the Jesuit
Order, i. 354 (note); two classes of,
424

Professed members of the Society of
Jesus, qualifications for, i. 414-5;
vow of, 417-8; five minor vows of,
418

Promotor Fidei , duties of, ii. 86 (note)
Property, renunciation of, by intending
priests, ii. 215

Proselytising at Jesuit schools, i. 157-8
Protestantism, qualified by tradition,
i. 6; relations of Ultramontanism
towards, 9; weakness of its view
respecting art, 46-7; antagonism with
Catholicism after the close of the
Franco-German War, 232-3; travesty
of, ii. 358-63; the Jesuits of Pro-
testantism, 451; ignorance of Catho-
licism too common in the ranks
of, ib.

Provinces of the Jesuit Order, i. 416;

how they are governed, 424
Provincial Congregation of the Society
of Jesus, i. 424

Prussia, Catholic dislike of Protestantism
of, i. 8-9; boycott of history of, at
Feldkirch, 122

Purgatory, suffering souls in, the coun-
terpart of ghosts, i. 26
Piitz. Father, singular conduct of, ii.

' 398

Qu^stor in Jesuit schools, duty of, i.
144

Quintinye, La, on Jesuit morality, ii.
300

490

Index

Racke’s attack on Lieber. ii. <02
Rackelwitz, in Saxony, i. 234 (note); the
authors brother-in-law buried at,
267

Ragnsa, Latin and Greek in the Jesuit
high school at, i. 69
Ranee, Armand de, Abb6, on Jesuit
moralB, ii. 290; treatment of, by the
Jesuits, 291, 299

Ranke, why the “ History of the Popes ”
by, is forbidden, ii. 273; influence of,
on the author, 406

Ratgeb, Father Jacob, justifies the
alleged removal from public libraries
of documents incriminating Jesuits,

i. 189; about the doubts concerning
the completeness of the Constitu-
tions, ii. 2; on the return of the
Jesuits to Germany, 47; consults
with the leaders of the German
Centre, 165; approves of the author's
progress in philosophy and theology,
269; termination of the author’s in-
timacy with, 372-4; commissions the
author to write in defence of the
Jesuit Order, 593; on Dollinger and
Reusch’s book on the “ Moral-Theo-
logical Disputes,” 396-7 ; commissions
the author to go to Berlin to prepare
for a Jesuit settlement there, 399-
400; consents to the author's ter-
tiate, 411

Ratio conscientiae, i. 342 et seqq.

Ratio Studiorum Societatis Jesu, the
be-all and end-all of the Jesuit
system of education, i. 63-111; its
prescription as to Physics, 65-6 ; as
to Mathematics, 67; as to History,
ib.; as to the Natural Sciences, ib.;
as to Theology and Philosophy, 68;
as to Scholarship and Philology,
68-70; fulsome and ridiculous praise
of, 74-6; egotism of, 82; the system
of education authorised by, 135 et
seqq.; on hostility to heretics, ii. 24-5 ;
considers the execution of heretics
an edifying sight, 356-7
Ravaillac, murder of Henry IV. of
France by, ii. 333

Ravignan on Jesuit support of the re*-
volution in Portugal, ii. 162-3; on
the struggle of the Order with
Gonzalez and the Pope, 295-6
Real Presence, doctrine of the, i. 199;
the essence of the Catholic priest-
hood, ii. 219; the dogmatic teaching
of the Church respecting the, 219-22
Regulae ^Communes, ii. 2
Rcjerendar, or county court judge, i.
264; the author appointed to the
office at Cleves, 265; difficulty of his
reappointment to, ii. 459; is offered
the post of, at Frankfort-on-the-
Oder, 462

Reformation, Jesuit scheme to undo the,

ii. 159

Rcgulae Communes, ii. 2
Reichensperger, August, on Jesnit poli-
tical activity, ii. 166
Reichmann, his praise of Tilmann Pesch,
ii. 357 ; how he dealt with the
calumny of Luther’s suicide, 360
(note); collaborates with Tilmann
Pesch, 395 (note)

Reinhold. Professor Karl Leonard, on
the Jesuit rule commanding renun-
ciation of parents, i. 3S9-400

Reinkens, Bishop, Bonn students' rude*
ness towards, i. 245

Reisach, Cardinal Count, once Arch-
bishop of Munich and afterwards
President of the Vatican Council, i.
237; his prediction about France
speedily falsified, 238
Relics, Pope's cast-ofi clothes utilised as,
i. 263; at the Church of St. John
of Lateran, 268; at Aix-la-Chapelle
described, 324-5; the author’s misery
at Aix-la-Chapelle, ii. 212
Religion, the chief function of true, ii.
455; E'hat constitutes true, 456; the
only basis of true, 456-8
Rem, Father Jacob, visited by the souls
of the dead, i. 310-i ; his pity im-
mortalised by Biedermann, 311
Remigius, the strange case of, ii. 346-9
Renewal of vows, ii. 389
Reports, the method and character of,
in the Jesuit Order, i. 352-5
Residences of Jesuits, i. 78
Retz, Francis, General, laments the
decay of the zeal for knowledge, i.
185

Reusch, Professor, decree of excommuni-
cation against, i. 244; accepts as
probable the report of the poisoning
of Cardinal Tournon, ii. 55; his
“ History of the Moral-Theological
Disputes” in the Catholic Church,
396-7

Reutsch, Father Karl, forbids the ad-
mittance of boys to the bedroom of
his brotherhood, i. 203
Rhenish-Westphalia, Catholics of, and
their hatred of Prussia, i. 8-9; de-
fective education in, 10; their strong
pro-Austrian attitude in the war
with Prussia, 211; fanaticism of,
concerning the doctrine of infalli-
bility, 221-2

Rhetoric, studies of, during the scholas-
ticate, ii. 230-45

Ribadeneira on the authorship of the
Constitutions, i. 408

Riembauer, Father Franz, confesses to
the murder of a woman, ii. 367-8
Riezler, Sigmund, on Loyola’s piety and
asceticism, i. 299 (note); on the effect
of Jesuit piety in Bavaria, 319; on
Duhr's untrustworthiness, ii. 283
Rist, M., illustrates the Jesuit notions
of patriotism, ii. 37; relates how
peace may be made with the Church,
381

Rivalry in Jesuit schools, unwholesome.

i. 143-4

Rodriguez, Alonzo, on simplicity in
Jesuit garb, i. 285; sanctity attached
to his ” Practice of Christian Per-
fection,” 313-4; quotations from this
work as examples of credulity, 314-8;
on blind obedience, 339-40 ; his ex-
cessive literalism. 389; is assured
that no Jesuit will be damned, 404;
on the authorship of the Constitu-
tion, 408
Roermond, i. 283

Roh, Father, teaches the author, i. 34;
proposes a safe bet, ii. 320; alleged
statement of, about the Jesuit de-
signs against the Hohenzollerns, 385
Roller. John, deplores the laziness of
Jesuit teachers, i. 187
Rom und das Zentrum, ii. 402

Index

49 1

Rome, external show at, i. 262; visit to
the miraculous image of Mary at,
263

Roothaan, John, General, re-edits the
Batio Studiorum, i. 63; relates how
a dismissed Jesuit missed salvation,
405; declares the Jesuit Order is
strictly non-political, ii. 133; holds
a conference to establish missions
in Germany, 383-4

Rosary as used by Jesuit students, L
182

Roser, Elisabeth, rebuffed by Loyola, ii.
129

Rosetti, Professor Costa, avows that it
is very probable all Jesuits go to
heaven, i. 405

Rosignoli, Father, extracts from his
“ Pity the Souls in Purgatory,” i.
305-6

Roth, Hugo, ii. 314

Rothe, influence of, on the author, ii.
406

Roux, Le, on the deathbed repentance
of the godless, ii. 300-1, 381-2
Ruga, Father, ii. 17-8
Rules concluding the Exercises, i. 376
Rumer, Rector of the Jesuit College at
Passau, ii. 159-60
Ryswick, peace of, ii. 42

Sabbatina disputation, ii. 248-9
Saint ( Sanctus ), the title of the canon-
ised, i. 310 (note)

St. Hedwig’s Infirmary, the headquarters
of the Jesuits in Berlin, ii. 411
(note)

Saint-Simon, the Duke de, recognises
the existence of lay members of the
Jesuit Society, ii. 19; his anecdote
about chocolate for the General, 104 ;
of the Jesuits at Namur, 162 and
note; on Jesuit influence at the
courts of Europe, 167-8; his portrait
of Tellier. 186-8 ; his note about
Father Bermudez, 188; his opinion
of Father D’Aubanton, 189; on the
pressure brought to bear by the
Jesuits on Louis XIV.. 191-2
Salmeron, Alphonso, a famous Jesuit
theologian, ii. Ill

Sanchez, disgraceful character of his
writings, ii. 289-90; favours the use
of ambiguity, 304

Santarelli’s Tractatus de Hacresi ap-
proved by the Jesuit Society, and
condemned by the Sorbonne, ii.
312

Sarasa, Antonins de, on blind obedience,

i. 338-9

Sardinia, King of (Charles Emmanuel),
on the wealth and arrogance of the
Jesuits, ii. 103

Sarpi, Paolo, on Jesuit intrigues in
politics, ii. 196; on Jesuit approval
of the murder of Henry IV. of
France, 336; on the conduct of the
Jesuits towards Venice. 364-5
Sarrazin effects a deathbed repentance,

ii. 381

Sattenwolf, Father Wenzel, enjoined to
take steps to raise the standard of
Latinity, i. 101

Scapulars, wearing of, i. 21 (note)
Schaffer, Father Karl. i. 132-3
Schall, Adam, ii. 60 (note)

Scheeben, Professor, on the genuineness

of the sham apparition at Marpin-
gen, i. 266

Schiller, a false ideal in von Doss’s
opinion, i. 227; the author’s bodeful
motto from Schiller’s Piccolo mini,
230; L. von Hammerstein’s estimate
of, ii. 232-3; Baumgartner’s criticism
of, 234-6

Schleiermacher, influence of, on the
author, ii. 406

Schneider, Father Joseph, how his “ ma-
gister '* meal was interrupted, ii.
76

Scholastic, the garb of a, i. 284 (note);
is kept in ignorance of the history
of the Order of Jesuits, ii. 224-5
Scholasticate. meditation during the. i.
297; study of the Exercises during
the, 371 ; when the scholasticate
begins, 407; duration of, ib. and
note ; simple vows of, 417 ; uniformity
of the routine during the, ii. 199-200;
ignorance of the Order a peculiarity
of the, 224-5; scheme of study during
the, 227-69; humanistic studies dur-
ing the. 228-9; rhetoric studies
during the, 229-45; philosophy and
theology studies of the, 246-9
Scholasticism, Jesuit, perfect sterility
of, ii. 260; Kink on the evils of,
278-9

Schreiber.’s specimens of subjects selected
for disputation at Freiburg, ii. 280-1
Schwarzenberg. Prince, and the German
Empire’s indebtedness to the Jesuits,
ii. 85

Scio, how the Jesuits Christianised the
Mohammedans of, ii. 364
Scotland, Jesuit designs touching the
restoration of the Catholic religion
in, ii. 148; Parsons’ plot in favour
of Mary, Queen of, 149-53
Scott, Sir Walter, as a classic at Stony-
hurst, i. 242
Scourge, use of, i. 395
Scriptor, duties of, ii. 370, 389-90
Secrecy enjoined in the Jesuit Order,

i. 353; use of a cipher, ib.

Secret instructions of the 'Jesuit Society.
(See Monita)

Secrets at La Salette, the, i. 28
Secular clergy, relations of the Jesuits
with, ii. 44-8

Sedan, prisoners taken at, i. 233; mis-
representation of the results of, 234
Sendbote des gottlichen Herzens , ex-
amples of the grotesque cures re-
corded in the. i. 306-8
Sergardi, Ludovico, on Jesuit morals,

ii. 289-90 _ .

Sermon on the Mount, the true Chris-
tian cpde, i. 274; why the Jesuits set
it aside, 277

Servi Marine in Jesuit schools, duties
of, i. 144

Settlements of Jesuits, i. 78 (note); con-
stitution of, 424

Seuse, the mysticism of, repugnant to
the Jesuits, i. 299

Sexuality, teaching of the Christian
Church regarding, i. 40-1 ; attitude
of Jesuits towards, in schools, 202-8;
delicacy of the question, 209
Simple vows of scholastics and spiritual
and temporal coadjutors, i. 417;
constitute an impediment to mar-
riage, 273, 417

492

Index

Sixtu3 V., Pope, favours the Marian
Congregations, i. 165, 169; condemns
Loyola’s letter on obedience, 336;
death of, ii. 110 (note)

Slaugnter, Fatner, on the deathbed re-
pentance of the wicked, ii. 382
Smet, de, character of, ii. 391
Snufi-taKing, a habit of Jesuits, i. 205;

Pius IX. s " snutfy ” appearance, 262
Socialism has a link with Jesuitism, ii.

371 (note) . . _

Societas Jesu, or Society of Jesus,
Monita of, ii. 7; Anatomia of, 9;
Arcana of, 10; name of. 110 and
notes, 119-20; Imago of, 112-23, (See
Imago, Institute. Jesuits)

Socius, the post of, in a Jesuit Society,

i. 271; and in a Province, 424
Solms-Braunfels, Prince Alexander of,

turns Catholic, i. 20 ; widow of, en-
tertains von Doss as her spiritual
director at Marxheim, 249
Sorbonne, the, condemns Santarelli a
Tractatus de Haeresi, ii. 312; orders
Mariana’s book to be burned, 333
Sotelo, Louis, Franciscan Bishop, records
the conduct of the Jesuits towards
him, ii. 365

Soubirous, Bernadotte, i. 258
Soullier, Father, ii. 92
Southwell, Father Robert, equivocation
of, ii. 312 .

Sovereigns, Jesuits and the confession
of ii 168-98; secret instructions for
the confessing of, 172; purpose of
the confessing of. 172-3
Spalatro, Jesuit trading in the district
of, ii. 98 , ,

Spec Friedrich von, on the Jesuits and
vvitchcraft, i. 319, 320
Spichern, incident of the news of the
German victory at, i. 233
Spreuger on legitimate equivocations, n.
302

Stanislaus' Day, St., i. 285; author
preaches the sermon on, 291. (See
Kostka) . .

Stapleton, Lady, and the use of Ditton
Hall as a Jesuit college, i. 287
State, the, in its relations to the Church,

ii. 338-68; Jesuitism a standing
menace to, 436-41; Jesuit hostility
to the schools of the, 439,40; the
connection between Church and
State considered, 452-5

Stattler, Father Benedict, his theory of
justifiable murder, ii. 366 and note
Steer, Father Norhert, on the evil of
confessing children in the confessor’s
bedroom, i. 203

Stella Matutina, Jesuit school at Feld-
kirch, i. 54-60

Stentrup, Professor, ii. 367
Stern, Dr. Jacob, anent the violation of
Maria Theresa’s confession, ii. 175-6
Stessl, Jac., condemns the ignorance of
Greek amongst Jesuits, i. 187
** Stieger," meaning of the new verb
“ to," i. 150

Stimmen aus Maria-Laach, i. 325 ; head-
quarters of, at Exaeten, ii. 369, 370
Stitzing, Professor von, ultramontane
students’ demonstration against, i.
244-5

Stacker, Dr. Adolf, invites the author
to write for the Kreuzzeitung, ii.
449; character of, 451

Stolberg. Count Alfred, on Kullmann’s
attempt on Bismarck’s life, i. 212
Stolberg-Stolberg, Count Caius zu, his
antipatny to Protestantism, i. 6-/;
the author’s godfather, 7, 243
Stolberg-btoitierg, Count Franz zu, en-
gaged to the author's sister Marie,

i. 243; death of, 267

Stolberg-Stolberg, Count Friedrich Leo-
pold zu, i. 7, 243

Stonyhurst, fees at. i. 116; character of
the buildings at. 240 ; laxity of
supervision, 240-1 ; pursuits of the
students, 241 ; inadequacy of the
instruction at, 241-2; the "table"
at, ii. 75

Straubing, the Hartmann lawsuit at,

ii. 100-2

Strauss, Father Karl, Music Prefect at
Feldkirch, i. 213

Streicher, Father, exposes the Spanish
Jesuits’ ignorance of Latin, i. 102;
how members dismissed from the
Order are treated, ii. 12-13
Stuarts, the Jesuits and the downfall of
the, ii. 153, 155

Studt sanctions the right of gymnasium
to a part in Marian Congregations,
i. 172

Sturm, Johannes, scholastic scheme of,
copied by the Jesuits, i. 63
Suarez, Francis, the greatest theologian
of the Jesuit Order, i. 408, ii. Ill;
thesis in his De Religione touching
the authorship of the Constitutions,
i. 407-8; condones the use of ambi-
guity, ii. 305; on adultery, 309; on
the supremacy of Church over State,
338; allows that heretics may be
sentenced to death, 355; teaches
the "indirect" power of the Pope,
428

Substantialia Instituti , “ the essential
contents of the Institute," are kept
strictly secret, i. 414; supposed defi-
nition of, ii. 3-4

Sulkow, Demetrius, Archbishop of Lem-
berg, on persons dismissed the So-
ciety of Jesus, ii. 15
Summa theologica, ii. 255
Summarium Constitntionum, ii. 2
Superior, subordination to, must he
complete, i. 134; the Constitutions
on the supremacy of the, 326 et seqq . ;
head of Province and of Settlement,
424; secret routine before the ap-
pointment of a Provincial Superior,
425-7

Superstitions observances in Catholi-
cism. i. 12-14

Suppression of the Jesuit Order, i. 86,
168, ii. 22, 66; Cordara discusses why
God permitted it, ii. 106-9
Sweden, Jesuit political intrigues in, ii.
138

Swieten, Gerhard van, summoned to
Vienna by Maria Theresa, ii. 43; his
struggle with the Jesuits, 43-4; slan-
dered by the Jesuits, 43 (note); in-
forms Maria Theresa of Jesuit an-
noyance at the Imago, 112; on the
decay of those universities where
the Jesuits ruled, 279
Sybel, Heinrich von, lectures of, i. 122

Tamburini. General, prohibits certain
propositions from Descartes and

Index

493

Leihnitz, ii. 253; on the persecution
of, by the Order, 295 (note)

Tanner, Father Matthias, recommends
scourging for Jesuits who fondle
young persons, i. 20b
Tauler, the mysticism of, repugnant to
the Jesuits, i. 299

Taunton, E. L., his “Jesuits in Eng-
land ’’ cited, ii. 46, 150, 152, 153, 154; his
review of Edward Petre’s conduct,
155; ascribes the fall of the Stuarts
to the Jesuits, ib.; on Foley’s habit
of garbling the text, 284-5 (note);
on Gerard's notion of allegiance,
311-2

Taunus, au all-night sitting in the, i.
226, 249

Taxil hoax, the, i. 267

Teaching, why Jesuits must fail in, i.

134 (See Education and Jesuits)
Tellier succeeds La Chaise as Confessor
to Louis XIV., ii. 186; Saint-Simon’s
pen portrait of, 187-8
Teresa, Saint, vision of, i. 404; unwit-
tingly gets Hahn into trouble, ii.
269

Terrien, Father, i. 404
Tertiaries, a class of Jesuit affiliates,
ii. 19

Tertiate, full course of the Exercises
during the. i. 371; final stage of pro-
bation for the priesthood, ii. 369;
course of study during, 412-5; chief
feature of, 412

Theology, importance of, to Jesuits, ii.
248; course of study of, 248-250;
authority of Thomas Aquinas su-
preme in, 253-6

Thirty Years’ War, Jesuit selfishness
during the, ii. 41; Jesuits’ share in
the, 158-9; partly financed by the
Jesuits, 160-1

“ Thomisin ” and “ Thomiatic,” ii. 256
(note)

Thorn, the massacre of, ii. 25-29
Toleration, religious, Jesuit attitude
towards, ii. 349-354

Toni, or the practice in oratory, i. 291
Torres, Miguel, ii. 16
Tournay, Convent, an old vest of the
Pope’s sent to, as a relic, i. 263
Tonrnon, Charles, sent by Clement XI.
to settle the disputes about the
Chinese rites and missions, ii. 53;
opposed by the Jesuits, 54; Jesuits
accused of poisoning him, 54-6; let-
ters and reports from Tournon com-
plaining how the Jesuits obstructed
him, 59-64; condemns their usury in
China, 89

Trade and commerce, Jesuits’ success
in. ii. 91-9

Transubstantiation, the process of, ii.
220

Treitschke, Heinrich von, as a lecturer*
ii. 404-5; influence on the author,
405

Triduum, the nature of the, ii. 389
Trinity, doctrine of the. ii. 224
Tnrmae, the system of, i. 290
Tyannicide, Jesuit teaching about,
ii. 327-337; approval of Mariana’s
doctrine in favour of the hill-
ing of princes, 328; attempt of
the Order to meet the public in-
dignation caused by their approval,
332-3

Ultramontanism. certain journals of,
i. 6; heresy-hunting spirit of, 7; how
it colours loyalty aud patriotism,
9; tyranny of, over the mind, 12;
superstitious observances of, 12, 13;
the essence of, 21; uuscrupulous
fondness for theatricality, 22-3; the
supernatural world of, 26; teaches
belief in guardian angels, ghosts
and devils, 26-7; why it insists on
early confession, 34; evil iof its
teaching respecting sexuality, 39;
its attitude towards the liberal arts,
46-78; internationalism in its system
of education, 49-51; complete sub-
servience of the laity to, 142; whole-
hearted selfishness of, 222-3; atti-
tude of towards freemasonry, 224;
in the political arena, 231, 246-7;
pomp and splendour of and their
object, 237-8; resistance to its arro-
gance would help undo it, 238; inso-
lence of, towards the Old Catholics,
244-5; consolidated by the Kultur-
kampf, 255-6; the bondage of Ultra-
montanism, 260-1; doctrine as to the
Catholic taking of the oath of alle-
giance in Germany, 264-5; the will-
ing dupe of hoaxes and sham
apparitions, 266-7 ; its classification
of Christians of its own Church,
272; its doctrine of the Orders, 27^>;
puts on one side the Sermon on the
Mount in favour of its own artificial
basis for the Orders, 277; governed
also by Christian idealism, 278; its
handling of confession, 361-9 ; doc-
trine of, touching God, Christ and
the world, 377; the Exercises the
main prop of, 377-8; its view of
woman, ii. 125; its reason for invent-
ing the system of princes confes-
sors. 135; its faith in the devil a
vital matter, 209; has dominated
dogma within the Catholic church.
287-8; insists on the supremacy or
Church over State. 338-368; uses
confession as a lever to move the
world, 386-7; an abuse of the Catho-
lic religion, 406-7; the Order fatal
to the Papacy, 427; historically and
actually a separable force from
Catholicism, 465; the proper method
of combating it, in Germany, 465
(note) „ . ^ _ . , c .

Uniformity in the Jesuit Order, l. ood-

361

Universities, Jesuit intrigues at the, of
Ingolstadt, ii. 38-40; of Freiburg in
Breisgau. 40-2; of Vienna, 42-5; of
Paris, 47-8

Untruthfulness, an all-pervading Jesuit
failing, ii. 49; considered in detail,
302-319

Urban VIII., Pope, canonises Ignatius
Loyola, ii. 21-2; forbids the Orders
to carry on commerce, 99 and note;
favours the annexation of Lusatia
to France, 182

Ursula. St., the virgins of, ii. 207

Vatican Council of 1870. incidents at,
i. 220-4; the minority party at, 220-1;
surrender of the German bishops at,
223-4 ; its President, 237
Vatican Palace, non-Chrietiau character
of, i. 263

494

Index

Vaughan, Father Bernard, in great re-
quest for charity sermons, ii. 413
Vaux, Lady Anne, letters of. to Father
Garnet, ii. 128

Venerable ( Venerabilis), a title pre-
liminary to Saint (Sanctus), L 310
(note)

Venice, conquest of Scio by, ii. 364;
Paul V. at war with, ib.; Jesuits
driven out of, 364-5
Vergara, secretly a Jesuit, ii. 16
Verjus, Father Antoine, ii. 198
Vervaux, Father, ii. 190-1
Vicar-General of the Society of Jesus,
duties of, i. 421-3

Vicecomes, Jesuit General, on the com-
petition of secular schools, i. 187
Vicious practices alleged of Jesuits, i.
206-7, ii. 68-9

Vienna, important Jesuit documents in
the library at, i. 184 et seqq.; how
they came to be placed there, 189;
ignorance of German on the part
of Jesuit Professors at the Univer-
sity of, ii. 32-3; Jesuit intrigues at
the University of, 42-5
Villas of the Jesuit Order, ii. 77
Viller. Father, an active political agent
in Austria, ii. 139; deprecates Jesuit
jealousy, 195
Vincent, Julian, i. 336
Vincent de Paul, St., ii. 57 (note)
Virgin, the adoration of the, ii. 204-5;
extravagances of the worship of
the, 205-7

Visitator, status of, in the Jesuit Order,
ii. 33 (note)

Vitelleschi, Mutius, General, requires
the Alonita to be refuted, ii. 7;
ordinance of, anent the confessing
of sovereigns, 173; approves San-
tarelli’s Tractatus de Haeresi , 312
Vocation, choice of, ii. 215; gains stu-
dents 'for the Jesuit priesthood, 216:
disregard of the, and the mental
torture it entails, 260-1
Voit on the advice to avoid a greater
sin by perpetrating a lesser, ii.
326-7

Voltaire mentions an instance of a
betrayed confession, ii. 177-8
Vow, Jesuits by, ii. 17-20. (See Affiliates)
Vows of poverty, chastity and obedi-
ence, i. 273; devotional or votive
vows, 402-3; constitutional vows of
the Society, 416-8; simple vows of
scholastics and spiritual and tem-
poral coadjutors, 417; vow of the
professed, 417-8; five minor vows of
the professed. 418; final vows of the
spiritual and temporal coadjutors,
ib.; Jesuit violation of the vow of
obedience, ii. 50-67; Jesuit violation
of the vow of chastity, 67-71; Jesuit
violation of the vow of poverty, 71-
104; the renewal of vows, 389

Wagner, Franz, on a uniform time-
table for use in Jesuit schools, i.
93

Waitz, Georg, lectures of, at Gdttingen,

i. 122

Waldburg-Zeil, Georg, ii. 383-4
Waldemar of Denmark, the Princess,
under the influence of the Jesuits,

ii. 167

Waldersee, Count, ii. 461

Waldthauser, Ferdinand, Bohemian Pro-
vincial, on secret drinking among
Jesuits, i. 183

Wallenstein, fall of, the work of the
Jesuits, ii. 159; Jesuits assist in
procuring the doom of, 179-80
Warner, Jesuit Confessor of James II.,
ii. 153

Wars: Austro-Prussian of 1866, i. 210-3;
Franco-German of 1870-1, 232-3; Jesuit
hostility to Prussia in both cases,
ib.; Jesuit conduct during the Thirty
Years’ War. ii. 41, 158-9
Warsewicz, Stanislaus, ii. 138
Wasmann. Erich, ii. 266
Wealth of the Jesuit Order, ii. 82-90;
acquired in trade and commerce,
91-9; revenue of the Jesuits in the
Upper German Province from 1620
to 1700, 82-3; vast landed property
of the Jesuits in the Upper German
Province in 1773, 84-5; wealth of
the Order in, at the date of its
suppression, 85; in the Province of
America, 87-8; in China, 88-9; in
France at date of the suppression,
89-90

Wendt-Gevelinghausen, Baron von, ii.
393

Wenig, Professor J. L., on the death
sentence for heretics, ii. 354; cries
“ God bless the Inquisition ! ” 355
Wernz, Francis Xavier, General, a
teacher at Feldkirch, i. 118; one
of the two German Generals of the
Order, ii. 145 (note); insists on the
supremacy of Church over State,
338-40; holds that non-Catholic
Christians are beyond the pale,
350-1 ; his hostility to State schools.
439

Wertenberg, Father, i. 264
Weston, Father, records instances of the
exorcism of devils, i. 321-2
“ Why should the Jesuits not return to
Germany?” the author’s pamphlet
in defence of the Order, ii. 393-4;
why it is superficial and untrue,
395-6

Wiedemann, Father, character of, ii.

217-8; interested in a new gun, 218
Wilhelm, Balthasar, ii. 277
William I. and the Empress Augusta,

i. 8; reception of the Emperor at
Mayence, 232

William II., German Emperor, has a
long conversation with the author,

ii. 459; the Kaiser’s promise, 460;
Count Waldersee’3 memorial to, 461;
the author has another interview
with, 461-2; the Kaiser “lets the
man drop,” 462-3

William Y. of Bavaria. Duke. ii. 83
Windthorst, Herr, In frequent consulta-
tion with the Jesuits, ii. 165-6; not
in favour of extreme measures
against non-Catholic Christians. 375.;
decides to make capital out of the
Papal States question, 391-2; ap-
proves of the author’s Church and
State pamphlet, 393; approves of the
Jesuit settlement in Berlin, 400 ;
Lieber’s relations with. 402; extra-
ordinary statement alleged to have
been made bv. ib.

Winfridian Students’ Union at Gottin-
gen. i. 246

Index

495

Wisbeach (Wisbech), Jesuit activity at,
in Elizabeth’s reign, ii. 46
Wiseman, Cardinal Nicholas, " Hidden
Gem " by, the type of a safe drama
in Jesuit eyes. i. 125; deplores the
lack of Jesuit zeal in London, ii.
31-2

Witchcraft and magic, Jesuit procedure
in cases of, i. 154-5; how to exorcise
witches, 320-1; instance of bewitch-
ment, 322

Wolff-Metternich. Count Paul, i. 261
Woman, place of, in the Jesuit scheme,
in theory and in practice, i. 384, ii.
123; easily led by Jesuit guile, ii.
11, 12, 18; relation of the Order to,
123-32; instructions to Jesuits re-
specting women and confession per-
meated with suspicion and sugges-
tion, 124-5; women of rank may enter
Jesuit Colleges, 126; the status of
the women who may be visited by
Jesuits, 126-7; woman as regarded
by Loyola, 127; every attention paid
by Jesuits to wealthy women, 128-9
Wurzburg, the author studies for the
Law at, i. 261

Wynandsrade, the professional staff at
the College at, i. 119-24; the Rhetoric

curriculum at, 120; the History
course at, 121-2; set aside for the
students of Humanity, 287; the
author migrates to Wynandsrade
for his scholasticate, 406, 407; its
villa at Aalbeck, ii. 77; the author's
residence at, for Humanity and
Rhetoric, 201-14; the Virgin held in
special honour at, 208

Xavier, St. Francis, successful invoca-
tion to. i. 304; miraculous portrait
of, 312; “novena of grace” in
honour of, 323; universal fame of,
ii. Ill

Zahorowski, editor of the first edition
of the Monita privata , ii. 7
Zeil, the haunted wing in the Castle
of, i. 27

Zeno, Antonio, and the renegade Moham-
medans of Scio, ii. 364
Zorell, Francis, on the clockwork sys-
tem of Jesuit education, i. 93
Zorzi, Marino, ii. 158
Zottowski, Ladislaus, Jesuit Provincial,
on the indifference shown by
teachers, i. 186

Printoo by Cassell & Company, Limited, La Belle Sauvagb, Lonoon, E.C.

151631 HEcel

©

ffl

3

O

O

£

o

Sf

H

J

0

o

*4

»a

m

a

tn

cl

3

*

University of Toronto

DO NOT

REMOVE

THE

CARD

FROM

THIS

POCKET

Acme Library Card Pocket

Under Pat. “Ref. Index File"

Made by LIBRARY BUREAU